Politics and Government

State and Local Governments (U.S.)

  • United States
    What the 2022 Midterm Elections Mean for U.S. Climate Policy
    Progress on President Biden’s climate agenda will slow with a split Congress. But with federal efforts dulled, state-level action could supply added momentum.
  • State and Local Governments (U.S.)
    Federalism and Foreign Policy: The Role of States
    Play
    Jenna Bednar, professor of political science and public policy at the University of Michigan, and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discuss the risks and benefits of subnational involvement in foreign affairs and the power that U.S. cities and states have to influence federal and international policy agendas.  TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Thank you for taking the time to be with us. As a reminder, this webinar is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on CFR’s website, CFR.org. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. And, as always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments and provides analysis on a wide range of policy topics. We’re excited to have participants from forty-seven states and territories with us. I’m pleased to introduce our speakers, Jenna Bednar and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, for today’s discussion on “Federalism and Foreign Policy: The Role of States,” and we shared with you in advance their recent article in Foreign Affairs entitled “The Fractured Superpower.” So I commend that to all of you, and that is, obviously, the basis for today’s discussion. Jenna Bednar is professor of political science at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on the theoretical underpinnings of the stability of federal states and her recent book, The Robust Federation, demonstrates how complementary institutions maintain and adjust the distribution of authority between national and state governments. Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar is the current president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He has previously served as a justice of the Supreme Court of California and in two presidential administrations. He was also the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and Political Science at Stanford University where he directed the university’s Spogli Institute for International Studies and co-directed its Center for International Security and Cooperation. So thank you very much to both of you for being with us to talk about the recent piece in Foreign Affairs. You discuss the shift to city and state involvement in federal-level policymaking. So, Jenna, let’s start with you to talk about your—what you found in that article and give us an overview of the distribution of authority in the United States, the risks and benefits to this structure. BEDNAR: Thank you. Thank you, Irina, for this invitation and an opportunity to share this hour with everyone. Happy to get us kicked off thinking a little bit more about federalism, and when we think about federalism I want to think about it in three domains—domestic policymaking, foreign policymaking, and sustaining democracy—in the same way that Tino and I organized that article. And in terms of, like, the descriptive and the distribution of authority, originally states and locals were intended for the police powers or the day-to-day governance—you know, policing, emergency response, zoning, health, education, welfare—and then the feds for defense, foreign relations, and managing the economy or maintaining a common market between the states. And we know that this line has both shifted and blurred. In particular, the role of the federal government in domestic policymaking in our day-to-day affairs has grown exponentially but at the same time is something, I think, that we’re going to talk a lot more about the nature of the— As the nature of the global system shifts from being—I really like the metaphor that Anne-Marie Slaughter of New America gives us—moving from a nation-state chessboard to one that’s a very networked web, states are much more involved in foreign policymaking, and so those buckets that I mentioned—domestic and foreign policymaking and sustaining democracy—have changed and that’s OK. First, that’s all right. That’s actually normal and very healthy for a federal system. You can think of it like breathing. And so, instead, I encourage you to think about, well, what’s the function of federalism? Why do we have it? And some people think about, well, federalism is for allocation—that is, to harmonize access to resources or maybe even just administrative decentralization. I think that the people on this call are not interested in that view of federalism. I just last week did a similar webinar with the civil servants in—federal-level civil servants in Canada, and they were really thinking about the provinces as being just pains in the neck. So, anyway, another way of thinking about the reason why we have federalism is as context fitting. Well, OK, the central government would do it, could do it better, but won’t because there is variation from state to state, locality to locality, and so we just decentralize enough to be able to take these local contexts into account. I’d like you to think about a third frame and that frame is problem solving, that federalism can act like a problem-solving mechanism. And what does it mean to problem solve? Problem solving, the very first thing that we have to do is to identify the problem—what is it that needs to be solved—and then the frame on that problem, why is this a problem. Also, in problem solving we need to think, well, what would better look like? What is a vision that we would like to work toward? And then we can get to how do you solve it, what are the alternatives, and then the implementation of that remedy. So this is a problem-solving process, and I want to be thinking about—I encourage you all to think about federalism as a problem-solving process where the problem is good policy. And so the first and second, that is, federalism as some kind of—we have it for allocation or we have it to fit context—in both of those frames, diversity—the diversity that we have in our country is like an annoyance, right? It’s an inconvenience. But in the third diversity is an asset, right? In the first two, there is a sense that states with one another and with the federal government are in competition, and in the third—this problem-solving frame—we can think of it being a collaborative process, certainly, you know, where you are working toward alignment of values and alignment of action. Certainly, in any good collaborative relationship, there are differences to be worked out. Sometimes they can be quite aggravating. But thinking about it as collaboration versus competition might—I think, is a real opportunity that federalism offers. And so what are some of the things that can go wrong? Given that I have said that diversity is an asset and diversity shows up as a way, you know, where you assert a difference of opinion, a difference of a goal—at least a short-term goal—there is a real incentive for those who have power and, currently, the federal government very often, whether it’s constitutional through its spending authorities or some other way, has the power. It might be tempted to squash the independence of the state and local governments. And so I think that that’s a real hazard, first, of course, because independence is a reality, that state and local governments are going to find a way to assert their independence. Even just in the act of implementing federal policy there is discretion and some assertion of independence. But, secondly, as I’ve just said, I think this diversity, if we can overcome the problematic externalities and that sort of thing, is really useful if federalism is this problem-solving mechanism. And then when we think about, in particular, in the context of foreign policymaking where you might think that having this kind of, as Tino and I had in the title, this fractured superpower—this complexification of foreign policymaking—why would you want that? Well, one reason is continuity. That is, if the federal government for some reason steps back away from some kind of relationships that it had formed in the international sphere—for example, when the Trump administration decided to pull out of the Paris Accords—at the state and local levels we can have continuity in terms of meeting the expectations of those accords so that we actually—it is a way of regulating—that is, maintaining—a more consistent relationship with the broader international community. And then I’d like to put forward one last reason why I think it’s quite important to maintain this independence and that it allows for much more complex diplomatic relationship with other countries. So, for example, think about the U.S. relationship with China right now, fraught in many ways. By having this complexification, having these multiple levels of relationships, we can have subnational governments maintain the kind of very fruitful collaborations, particularly with green energy and other forms of sustainability science, information exchanges, best practices that can help move us forward in meeting this—you know, the greatest of global challenges, while at the same time at the national level Washington is able to maintain a much more adversarial role in particular over our relationship with Taiwan. And so—and just to wrap up and turn things over to Tino, this is a really exciting moment for the states and local governments. First, you have proven yourselves to be absolutely necessary to sustaining our American democracy, to making it healthy, as we saw not just in the 2020 presidential elections but again, just a few days ago. Kudos to all of you in running such transparent, ethical elections. And with these midterms and even though we don’t yet know the balance of power in Congress, it really doesn’t matter at this point. We know it’s going to be really close—and so we know it’s gridlock, and gridlock in a federal system doesn’t mean the end of policymaking. It just means that the real centers of policymaking are at the state and local levels. So this is a real moment of opportunity domestically. And then couple that with this new interest in subnational diplomacy. I’m very excited about the new office at the Department of State, for example, recognizing the role that states and locals are already playing in foreign relations and, perhaps, extending it. So I look forward to seeing what you all do. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, Jenna. And, Tino, let’s go to you now to talk about the policy recommendations and anything else you want to expand on. CUÉLLAR: Thank you, Irina, and thank you, Jenna. Jenna, it’s great to collaborate with you. For anybody in the audience, if you ever get a chance to co-author an article with Jenna I recommend it. It’s a great experience. So I want to make three points, picking up on Jenna’s contributions. Two of them follow from the article that we wrote together. The third is a little bit me trying to begin to extend the implications of our argument in a direction that maybe highlights a bit more where American foreign policy might be going or could go in the next, say, ten years if it takes seriously some of the implications of what we develop. So that last part I will not burden Jenna with feeling responsible for it, although if she hears anything she likes she can take the credit for it for sure. So the first point I want to make is to emphasize something that all of you know that really is reflected in the work you do day to day, which is that the state and local apparatus of government is, actually, really huge. Most Americans don’t fully understand that. They have a vision of the government where the federal government is big, the states are medium, and the cities are smaller. Even people who have pretty sophisticated understandings of public finance they don’t really get that, say, as of 2020 state and local governments employed 20 million people, whereas if you add up federal civilian employees you get 2.2 million people, active duty military personnel 1.3 million people. So we’re talking about the vast majority of people who work in and for government are you all, state and local, dealing with education, with land use, with criminal justice, emergency response, public health, all kinds of regulatory challenges, all kinds of economic development challenges. As a state Supreme Court justice, that was really my big takeaway from the experience. Like, if you want to know what governing is like, what cases arise when you’re just trying to govern, go to a state court and you’ll get a feel for that. And that’s not only a point about workforce. It’s a point about fiscal reality. So it’s true that the federal government spends more money than states, leaving aside the CHIPS Act and unusual things like that. But if you actually take military spending, entitlement spending, and debt service apart and look at the regular budgets, the lion’s share of the money that’s left on everything from environmental protection to worker protections to agricultural policy, everything else is states and local. So that is important in understanding what are we really talking about; why do these governments end up looming so large? What then should we imagine is responsible, thoughtful, priority setting from these different state and local governments and civil society around the idea of just how much power and importance state and local governments have? Well, I would say if you take an international perspective, states and cities need to prepare for a dynamic, competitive, not always fully clear-cut environment allowing for experimentation and coordination. That’s one way of saying that if you want to know what’s going to happen in the U.S. around climate, tech policy, immigrant integration, future of the biomedical sector, shared institutional development—the future of universities, for example—you have to think about these state and local linkages with the larger world because that will drive coordination around what common standards there may be. It’ll drive innovation. It’ll drive the capabilities that states have to go beyond a very gridlocked federal government that when it’s at its best is trying to respond to the disparate needs of many, many different jurisdictions. So whatever expectations we have in federal government even in the best of circumstances, and that’s not what where we are right now, you can’t really expect the federal government to figure out what exactly is good for Tennessee or for California or for Washington State. Another point to make, which is maybe highlighting where civil society can come in, I would say I’m speaking to you from the offices of the Carnegie Endowment here in California now. For most of our hundred and twelve-year history Carnegie has operated in national capitals, places like Washington, D.C., Brussels, New Delhi. Why do we have an office in California now? Because we think that subnational jurisdictions need the policy advice, the insight, the statistical and data analysis, the convening, to help shape a global agenda around all kinds of things that are not just your typical garden variety trade mission: around regulatory cooperation on technology, around the future of universities, around the biomedical sector, et cetera, around immigrant integration. Now I’m going to get to the last part, which goes a little bit beyond where Jenna and I ended up the argument but, I think, I would argue, follows from the argument. So, in my own organization, the Carnegie Endowment, we did some work in the last few years on foreign policy with the American middle class in mind. What does it mean to have the American middle class in mind? What does that mean for agricultural policy, for trade, for foreign investment, et cetera? And we came up with various ideas that highlight the importance of not forgetting the entire country, of thinking maybe in a more nuanced way around trade, thinking about the importance of reexamining some assumptions about the role of industrial policy. But I would extend that insight and maybe ask a slightly different question, which is: Where to a first approximation is the true greatest economic power of our country right now? And I don’t want to leave any part of our country out, but I will note if you take just the top twenty metro areas that’s 50 percent of the American global—gross domestic product, as it were. And if I think about what it takes to extend that economic well-being to the entire country but also to protect what makes our metro areas so dynamic, what makes us interested in subnational diplomacy in states and cities as a locale for real innovation and economic and political progress, then you can come up with a foreign policy agenda that is not necessarily what the country is prioritizing. And I’ll just note a couple of things that we probably want—like, we’d want to put on the list and not to exclude all the other things we have to worry about involving competition with techno authoritarianism and tensions with China and, you know, the future of India and so on. But, first, I would note all these metro areas have benefited from a steady flow of the very best international students that come to strong and dynamic universities, both public and private, places like where Jenna teaches—the University of Michigan. These jurisdictions benefit from the diplomatic space and resources for scientific partnerships with the very best labs across the world. So when Massachusetts becomes this sort of global biomedical hub that it is, it’s not only because it’s collaborating with other parts of the U.S. but with other parts of the world. These places benefit from pretty robust migration and real attention to the integration of migrants into their economies and their societies. They benefit from attention to the business climate and global IP issues that matter to companies that are headquartered in these metro areas around the country; resilience from cyberattacks and disinformation to protect infrastructure and civic life; political cover to celebrate and protect the diasporas that are at the center of a lot of our dynamic metro areas; expanding trade with data, services, and goods; and assistance in subnational diplomacy—jumpstarting that, making that really front and center in our foreign policy. So all that is to say I think we have some really exciting times ahead, potentially, even in a really difficult and fraught global environment because, at the end of the day—this is what I’ll end with—you can look at all the dysfunctions and difficulties in our country, and there are many. But if you look at the states and at cities, you will see that there’s also a massive laboratory for governance innovation and dynamism and performance that is actually hard to find anywhere else in the world. That makes me hopeful, even though I don’t want to ignore pretty big challenges all of us have to deal with. FASKIANOS: Thank you both for that. And now we’re going to go to all of you for your questions and comments. Again, as a reminder, this is a forum for sharing best practices so you can tell us what you’re doing in your communities. To ask a question or make a comment, click the raised hand icon on your screen, and then when you’re called upon please accept the unmute prompt and tell us your name and affiliation so that we know where—what state you’re calling from or joining us from. And you can also submit a written question via the Q&A box, and if you do write your question please give us your affiliation there to give us context. So Sean Loloee—excuse my pronunciation—I think you have raised your hand. You’ve also written your question, but why don’t you unmute and identify yourself and ask it yourself? Q: Thank you very much. Sean Loloee. I’m a city council member for city of Sacramento in California. And the question comes, at state level or at city level how can we be more effective when it comes to federal policies, that whether foreign policies that—you know, being involved and seeing that you might have an absolute negative effect not only within our own country but some countries overseas? For example, what we see in Iran right now, which is a major revolution that has been started by the women and they’re the front runners of this. First time in the history of mankind. Yet, the big message from that country is please do not sign the nuclear deal because, ultimately, we’re weaponizing the very regime that has killed so far thousands of people and they have arrested over fifteen thousand people, and the parliament of two hundred and ninety individuals. Two hundred twenty seven of them have—are putting pressure on the judiciary department to execute any of the fifteen thousand that were arrested during the peaceful protests. So my question is, how can we get involved? Because I’ve tried to reach out to some of the senators and, you know, get some feedback. I know that the government of Iran, they have their own lobbying group that they’ve been meeting with our senators and the White House. So being a person within a city in California, how can we get our voices out there to discuss that? That’s my first question for foreign policy. And then coming back to our own country, when the federal government sets aside a certain amount of funding for new green deals or green energy, I’m just curious that when we stop kind of producing or fracking for oil, which I’m against, by the way, but yet we go to countries that do not have as many environmental protocols or what have you and we demand them to produce more oil for us. So are we kind of going around a circle with what our intention is about global warming? That, you know, we stop here in our own country, yet, we go to, for example, the Saudis and say, produce more oil for us? And their environmental policies or lack of, I should say, are much more severe than what we could have done. So those are the two topics that I would like to, you know, put—and I’m hoping that I’m using the right forum to bring these two up. So my apologies if it’s not. But those are—those are my two questions. Thank you so much. CUÉLLAR: I’m happy to start. But, Jenna, you might have some ideas, too. Thank you for the question. I will make three brief points as I reflect on this. The first is I think, Sean, the capacity in our country to have coalitions of cities and states speak with a more unified foreign policy voice is in its adolescence. It’s not embryonic but it’s also not fully mature. If you think about it, the whole representative democracy system we have is, in principle, designed to represent states and their constituencies, cities to some degree, and Congress. But it’s a very different mechanism to elect someone to sit in the House of Representatives than to take mayors and council members, state legislators, who have their competing concerns—different levers they pull, different pressures that you have when you meet with constituents—and to give you a forum to have a discussion about how the global picture is affecting your lives and your jurisdictions and your constituents and your concerns. So there are embryonic efforts to create that capacity in, like, the National League of Cities, and so on. But I think we have a ways to go. A second brief point is the traditional way we think about the legal division of power in this country where the federal government has preeminent power on foreign affairs and national security is a very incomplete picture of how things actually work. So, legally, it’s true that binding legal agreements really have to be regulated at the federal level, and rightly so. But if cities or states want to enter into some agreement that is not legally binding to coordinate or to add their voices behind some concern about human rights they can do so. And, you know, closely related, if and when cities begin—this is the third point—to build coalitions across borders, which, you know, exists on issues like climate, I think the power there is really distinctive, and I suspect that as those links get more robust there will be more of an opportunity for officials in Sacramento to have some public platform around the world to speak up on issues like what’s happening in Iran. BEDNAR: And if I—I’m just going to follow up briefly to say that cities have, I think, a very important and different kind of role to play than Washington can play in both of those two challenges that you linked together so interestingly in your question. You know, and—because what cities can do is they can put forward a very human face and make this foreign policymaking to be about people—people connecting with people. And so, you know, for example, here I sit in Ann Arbor, which is very close to Dearborn, a location when Tino was talking earlier about diasporas, very significant, very diverse Muslim community and that kind of help all of us in Michigan think about the human face behind—and people who have family who are participating in the protests and some who are not participating in the protests, whether they—because they support the government or because they’re afraid. But all of that brings it down to a very human level. And then when you were talking about the environment and kind of the hypocrisy that can happen—and I’m hoping that other people bring up sustainability issues—I see cities as also being places where we can remind every individual that your action actually does matter and in some way. And so finding ways to be—to participate in climate action at the very local level where climate change is happening in much varied ways is empowering for people and, I think, can—as people get personally engaged in this movement it may cause them to, you know, have a greater commitment to some of these bigger problems like asking for oil and other resources from countries that have looser environmental regulations than we do. Absolutely, that hypocrisy is very frustrating for many of us. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Alexis Blane and then I’ll go to a written question. Q: Hi. Thanks. My name is Alexis Blane. I’m from the governor’s office in the state of Michigan. So hello, fellow Michigander, on this. You know, I’m interested—we’ve talked, I think, a lot about the positives that can come from distributing power and in foreign affairs. I’m thinking in particular of, you know, in the economic incentive space and in the early days of COVID we also saw a lot of the downsides that can come from having more actors in a space competing with each other for the same set of resources, whether those be, you know, PPE or connections. I’m wondering, as you look at this model of sort of a more devolved foreign policy, what are the tradeoffs that we’re making here and how do we think about minimizing those for folks? CUÉLLAR: Great question. Jenna, you want to start since you are from Michigan? BEDNAR: Yeah. I mean, so in my remarks I tried to outline, you know, what I see as risks are also benefits, right? But, you know, I absolutely agree with you that there are some real risks of having a more—I don’t want to say it’s not aligned but it isn’t aligned, right, I mean, because you have multiple points of interaction. And so the real hazard would be, I suppose, first, is there some way that this operation endangers U.S. security. That’s the kind of moment when we would expect to see more forceful intervention from Washington. But if it’s not immediately endangering security, I would hope that Washington might give a state with such competent leadership like the state of Michigan to explore its needs and see what opportunities it might be able to develop that could, ultimately, benefit the rest of the country. CUÉLLAR: I’ll add that I think the best example to me—I’ll just—two examples of where fragmentation is not an ideal or a positive outcome, to my mind. One is, historically, if you look at civil rights, which we talked about in the article, you know, the notion of robust, powerful states that can go their own way has a real damage to historical currency, in some respects, because that was the rubric under which to some degree, you know, states’ rights where sort of grossly unequal treatment for people who were African American or, in some cases, Latinos, played out in the country and it took concerted federal action but also, frankly, an awareness of what was going on in certain parts of the country driven by mass media that changed the picture. I think climate is another example where, for different reasons and somewhat different dynamics, the truth is—you know, let’s take my home state of California. California is one of the most climate-poor jurisdictions in the world. We have a ways to go to actually implement and live up to our commitments. But whether it’s zero-emission vehicles or charging infrastructure or power generation from clean sources or building codes that are phasing out gas or other things, we’re on the road to making serious progress. But you know what? California is, like, 1 percent of global emissions. Maybe a little more than that but not much. California’s real power is in providing a framework or an example that others can follow both in the U.S. and abroad, and some countries, like China, have borrowed a bit from California on things like zero-emission vehicles. But, again, if I were thinking about the six to seven to ten years we have to really drastically change the direction of policy around climate, it would be awfully helpful to have the entire country come together. I guess part of what Jenna and I are saying in the article is it’s always nice to have high expectations of the entire country, and maybe the country will live up to them. And this is not a point about policy priorities. It’s a point about process more than anything. But we have to think carefully about what the country has to do and what options it has to move forward where you cannot bring the entire country around but you still have to make progress. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Martin Miller, commissioner for West Norriton township in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Is it worth it for municipalities such as ours—it is a population of sixteen thousand—to implement clean energy mandates for government facilities, vehicles, et cetera, when our state as a whole has no such thing? So and how can they implement what they’re doing, have a tangible impact or can influence our state leaders to follow our lead? CUÉLLAR: Absolutely it’s worth it. That’s my perspective. But I’ll tell you why. I grew up in a town with a population of maybe sixteen thousand, twenty thousand. It was not the biggest part of California. It was not the most famous part of California, sitting in a very heavily rural area with water from the Colorado River. And I got to say I felt like just as we’ve been talking about how metro areas that are pretty big and globally oriented are in a conversation with each other, I think the towns like the ones I grew up in and like the one you mentioned are in conversation with each other, learn from each other, react to each other, can develop best practices together. And I don’t think there is a prospect for moving the entire country on sustainability or clean energy issues without trying to engage deeply with the smaller towns, with the rural parts of the country. So I think we have a huge ways to go. And maybe one version of our argument applied at the micro level is we see states as huge pivotal actors in global policy. But we also see cities and towns, potentially, as important actors that influence each other within the United States. So I think we need to invest in the ties that will bind these regions so they can share best practices and realize that even if the entire state is not pulled forward there’s still some useful things that can be done together at that level. BEDNAR: Yeah. And, Marty, I would just add to that I know one thing that really holds a lot of localities back is lack of funds. But if you have the funds, and you, clearly, have the will to do this, the impact that you could have is so much greater than the managing the emissions of a population of sixteen thousand. That is, what you are doing is you are showing other localities that this is possible, and I think what’s holding us back from climate action is people—a couple of things. One, people don’t think that they can make a difference and, secondly, they don’t know what to do. And you can show something that’s possible and can have a real result, and so your impact can be so much bigger than just sixteen thousand. FASKIANOS: So, Cliff Lippard, who’s executive director for the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, has a follow-on to Martin Miller’s question: Because of preemption and nullification how much success can we realistically expect cities to have in implementing sustainability and clean energy measures in state governors—governments that are resistant to such measures? BEDNAR: Yeah. I will just say, sitting here in Ann Arbor and until two days ago having a legislature—not a governor but a legislature that was hostile to a lot of the things that Ann Arbor wanted to do, including something like having a fee for plastic bags. Like, we just wanted to do that and the state legislature said no, no, no, you can’t have—you can’t do that. And so preemption is a real problem. I’m going to leave it—turn it over to my justice colleague to follow up with that. CUÉLLAR: Well, thank you, Jenna. It’s a challenge. Look, I think there is a—there are always two interesting preemption questions in this topic we’re discussing. One is the federal-state preemption question, and here—I know that was not the bulk of the question, I’ll just note—here, my experience is, of course, the federal government could preempt the states. But it’s actually a less clear picture of how often that happens and how that gets litigated and people think because there are doctrines that, I think, are, to my mind, fairly well justified, that effectively highlight from the courts that unless they have a pretty good reason to feel like Congress has spoken really clearly about something they will not ordinarily infer preemption of the federal government against the states. Now, at the state to the local level the doctrines are different, and sometimes the amount of intrusion from the state level to what the cities and counties and rural areas do is much more dramatic. I think it’s useful to take the long view. I would note that even the fight about something is sometimes worth having because it educates the public. It surfaces a genuine form of policy debate. Like, let’s be clear. To my mind, legislatures work best when they’re not the only place where the policy conversation is happening, where they’re forced to contend with things and to justify things on the local news or on a Facebook post or whatever. I would add that in those states like mine that have direct democracy it’s also important to note that these conflicts about state versus local preemption often end up getting taken to the voters. And, look, I’m not here to tell you that direct democracy is a panacea, that it works beautifully. But it’s true that it actually does end up settling these disputes often in ways that don’t go exactly in favor of what the state legislature might have initially wanted. FASKIANOS: Great. There’s a comment from Ted Raab, who’s the legislative director for Texas State Representative Mary González, about your argument and just wanted to comment, and I ask you, with legislators who are part-time who are in a state who meet for five months every two years, how do you balance good policymaking with that—you know, about dynamic foreign policy matters when they, generally, aren’t in session and their positions may be influenced by more partisan sentiments and their constituencies in their communities? CUÉLLAR: So if I can give you the think tank answer, because I sit in one, I would say think tanks, state universities, colleges, they all have a role to play in creating the infrastructure of knowledge and policy for deliberation and discussion. Doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to agree or take the same view. But I would say the more we’re honest about the incredible pressures that our public officials are under, sometimes in the short time frame they have to legislate—the constituency pressures, the fundraising pressures—the more, I think, we’re going to realize that we have to invest in generating objective, unbiased, nonpartisan knowledge. One reason we set up here in California is because—and I think I could make a similar argument about Texas and I’d love to set up a Carnegie Texas someday; we’ll see, maybe in Austin—is that if I were to look for objective, unbiased, very practical information on how this global trade, global migration, the global climate policy picture affecting Californians day to day, now, some of that is available but some of that we have to produce, and we’re working on producing that. So I would love to see more of that happening. I don’t think that’s enough but I think that’s a start. That moves things in the right direction. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m going to go next to David Hondowicz has a raised hand. I’m glad you put your hand back up. Q: Yeah. I got froze out a minute ago. FASKIANOS: OK. Q: So there’s something that’s been bugging me throughout my career that I thought I’d run all by you. I have a unique type of background for the business that I’m in. I started academically with a natural security degree from Georgetown and worked for the Marine Corps Association. Then I found myself working for a county council member in Montgomery County, Maryland, for about sixteen years. If anybody’s familiar with Montgomery County, Maryland, we’re where Supreme Court justices live, $6 billion budget and so forth. So it’s like running a lot of states and we have full-time staffing. And then I found myself these past three years—I’m chief of staff now for a member of the Maryland General Assembly and we meet ninety days every year, though, believe me, we’re busy otherwise. When I—right before I started at the county I remember someone coming up to me the night we won the primary and saying we need a climate change bill. And I laughed because I was, like, this is a federal thing. We don’t do this stuff locally. Well, a few years later we passed our first climate change legislation and that’s—there’s a lot invested in what we’re doing that locally. A few years later, I never thought we’d be involved in immigration. We had a day labor center in our own district and we found ourselves all tied up in that issue. We’re not in Texas or on the border or somewhere, and it’s a fairly progressive jurisdiction and we dealt with all that. And since being—working in the General Assembly we passed legislation dealing with Ukraine and our retirement benefits and so forth. But I also remember in the past the General Assembly passing, before I started working there—this is back in the mid ’90s—members passing various resolutions about Poland and different countries that should be joining NATO and the county council talking about whether or not we should be debating opposing the war in Iraq. So what I’m getting at is this, and it was alluded to by the—a gentleman from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a little while ago, which is, in what cases when I’m talking to—I’m going back to work at the county council again and we like taking positions on international things all the time because folks have very strong opinions about everything here. When is this—some sort of degree of involvement, and you alluded to it earlier, ties in, like, with climate change, you have enough—you may have enough impact yourself on an issue that’s not being addressed or not adequately at the federal level or you’re dealing with the consequences of a failure to act at the federal level versus pounding your chest, and you’re really not accomplishing anything on that issue but what you are doing is taking time away from the nuts and bolts responsibilities of local government like land use or a transportation project. CUÉLLAR: OK. Fair question. I think this is one, Jenna, you’ll have some thoughts on. I’ll just say very briefly—thank you for the question—look, I think it’s a judgment call. But I’d start from the following premise. Every jurisdiction in America, from a town of four hundred people to a state with 40 million people, is affected by global issues. Does that mean we should use a ton of time and energy of every single jurisdiction to respond to global issues? No. But I’ll start from the following two premises. Number one, the bigger jurisdictions in the country—the bigger cities, the bigger counties, and the bigger states—are genuine global actors. They have the cultural influence, the economic power, the responsibility even, to be thinking about how their actions shape these key global issues that also are bread and butter issues to the American public. Like, I cannot imagine an honest conversation about the day-to-day challenges that Americans face that doesn’t include the impact of climate, that doesn’t include the impact of migrants, that doesn’t include transnational crime, the impact of pandemics that cross borders, and so on, right? And then the second point I would make is that for the jurisdictions that feel like those issues are a little more remote so not California, not New York City, not the city of Philadelphia, you know, not Montgomery County. I would put Montgomery County in the clearly can have global influence category. I can tell you why in a second if you want. But for the smaller ones, I would say, at least there’s a responsibility to be aware, to join events like this, ideally, and be part of the discussion so that you can provide situational awareness to your constituents and policymakers. FASKIANOS: Tino, do you want to say why you think Montgomery County, as you just alluded to, it is in that—OK. CUÉLLAR: Yeah. Like, a ton of diplomats and government officials that have global influence, like, live there, right? So let’s just start with that reality. Convening them, being part of their conversation, asking how the climate stuff they’re working on has implications locally, trying to figure out how to cross divides that exist in the world among the residents of that jurisdiction already, I think, is a step in the right direction. FASKIANOS: Great. Jenna? BEDNAR: And I want to speak up for the smaller places as being so affected by any of these issues that we’ve just raised. You know, the local effects of climate change means that every place has to have a climate plan. Every place has to have a climate plan. You know, the labor shortage that is so very real in our rural areas is—means that migration and immigration is a very important economic factor for them, and then this balance between, you know, corporate investment, which is so needed but then also is very disruptive to kind of the local social fabric. These are global—effects of global issues that are completely shaping and changing what happens in your communities. And, you know, I’m hopeful that there is already some network of conversation-sharing best practices because, for example, climate action plans are very costly just to develop and to even know what to do. And so I hope there already is a network of information sharing that’s happening there as well as networks for lobbying, et cetera, for managing some of these other effects. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take a written question from Erin Bromaghim, deputy mayor of international affairs for the city of Los Angeles: First, what would you recommend to the State Department as ways to help grow capacity for international engagement by our local governments? And, second, how do we ensure greater subnational diplomacy? How do we ensure that it remains a bipartisan priority? CUÉLLAR: Great. Erin, great to be back in touch with you again. It was nice to see you in L.A. just a few days ago. Great questions. I think the creation of a special envoy for subnational diplomacy office by the State Department is a huge step in the right direction, which your predecessor as deputy mayor will do a great job on, no doubt. I do think there is a need for investment in this area outside the State Department. I would say—I would love to live in a world where five or six of the key agencies from the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, and the EPA had counterparts that was subnational diplomacy because so much of the action is around the issues those agencies handle. I’d love to see many, many more cities do what L.A. has done to create, like, a deputy mayor for international affairs position. I don’t think there’s anything like that anywhere in my neck of the woods in northern California. I don’t know that Boston has that. I mean, maybe they do a lot but I don’t—I think L.A. has been ahead of the curve. I think the harder question is your point about making sure this remains bipartisan and a first stab at that would be making sure that this whole movement towards engaging cities and subnational regions is not purely confined to certain geographies of the country but, really, blankets the whole country, brings people to the table to talk about values issues and about economic issues that affect the full cross section of the country. BEDNAR: Absolutely. CUÉLLAR: Irina, I think you’re muted. FASKIANOS: I am muted. Thank you. How many years have we been doing this now? CUÉLLAR: Not enough. FASKIANOS: Thank you for—yeah. Next, I’m going to go to raised hand for David DeCarlo. Q: Hi. It’s good to see you, Professor Cuéllar. I’m David DeCarlo with the state of Illinois. And my question is about the points raised in the article around states being, potentially, democracy defenders of last resort, so to speak, and, you know, if you could, you know, maybe briefly, you know, just provide some more thoughts around what you would view as the most legitimate and most effective types of actions. You gave some examples in the article. But, you know, maybe what would be kind of the most legitimate and most effective actions that states could take in a constitutional crisis? CUÉLLAR: Jenna, do you want to start? BEDNAR: You know what? So I guess I’d start by just describing some of the things that our own secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, has done to try to ensure that elections run smoothly. I really feel like the state secretaries of state were the real heroes of the 2020 election and coming through following the insurrection, doing all that they can to establish transparent processes that are welcoming of different parties’ involvement and supervision, not trying to close anybody out but creating transparency of the entire electoral process, from the moment of registration, what happens with the ballot and how is it counted, and what happens and in terms of challenges, and this is something that within this state we’ve been working really hard on and establishing. The other, I think, leadership role that the state of Michigan has played is showing the possibility—the transformative, really, possibility—of taking district drawing away from the legislature and giving it to a citizens commission, which is what we established thanks to what Tino described before about direct democracy in 2018. At that point—and the state of Michigan—Michigan is a fifty/fifty state, right? It’s very exciting politics here. Fifty/fifty with maybe a little margin for Democrats, which is how we end up with Democrats at the top leadership. And but at our state legislative level overwhelming majorities in both houses for Republicans, and including the State Senate was twenty-eight/ten Republican. Now, how that comes out of a state that is fifty/fifty, it just doesn’t seem right and it didn’t feel right to the citizens. And so the—through direct democracy taken away, this was the first election run through the new district boundaries drawn by this citizens commission and it’s, basically, fifty/fifty. I mean, yeah, there is this—again, this little margin for Democrats but it’s, essentially, fifty/fifty. That is something that gives people confidence in the democratic process. They feel like, OK, this is reflective of us, and I think this is something that many states can do better. CUÉLLAR: And I’ll add to that by noting, David—great question—I agree with everything Jenna said. I would add there is much reason to be optimistic about this country’s future, to my mind, notwithstanding some incredibly big issues we face including the insurrection, including some hyperpartisanship and polarization, and real, real difficulties. But when I think about how this last election, largely, played out, when I think about people in 2020 who stepped up to the plate, put aside partisan interests, and defended the process, I feel pretty good about it. That said, the point we try to make in the article is a little bit like a discussion of nuclear deterrence, and that’s a scary analogy but I just want to play it out for a moment so people understand, right? In the best state of the world with nuclear weapons, those weapons will never, ever, ever be used, and the better we understand the logic of what happens if and when those weapons are used as well as the risks of escalation, very much on my mind, given what’s happening in Ukraine, the better we understand what needs to be done so, ideally, those weapons are never used. So let’s project that logic to how American democracy works and note that in the off-the-equilibrium path, unusual, hopefully never to be encountered scenario where there was absolutely blatant—I’m not talking about like, well, some people feel like the election was not quite right. But, I mean, you know, an insurrection that then tries to stop the counting of electoral votes and replace the result with something different, the next step in that scenario is not like, oh, and then states kind of fall in line and everything’s fine except you just have somebody different at the top. No. States will disengage from federal power in various ways, following a ladder of options that, ideally, will be very carefully and very prudently thought out and that I would like to see never used, right? Are you with me? So it’s all about sort of an equilibrium—how do we create the incentives to make everybody understand that whatever the heated rhetoric they might be subjected to, it’s better for everybody to not create a situation where the only people that will benefit, really, are the countries and interests around the world that have a real desire to see America decline and, instead, we benefit from a vibrant partnership of countries—of states and jurisdictions that have a variety of different interests and specializations and areas of priority but that can come together around things like elections and never end up in that very dark place. FASKIANOS: Jenna, any last thoughts, or should we leave it there? BEDNAR: I think that’s a pretty powerful place to leave it. FASKIANOS: I do, too. I hope people have been looking at the Q&A box because there has been some sharing going on of what people are doing in their states, in Maryland and in Boston. And, Tino, this is for you from Ted Raab, who would—asks that when you open your office in Texas that you consider El Paso rather than Austin. So I’m just throwing that out to you. You should— CUÉLLAR: I spent a wonderful summer in El Paso and still am very fond of it, and family I had in Ciudad Juárez as well. So we’ll keep that in mind. Thank you. FASKIANOS: You should keep that in mind and I can connect you with Ted after this if you need more convincing. But thank you to both of you for doing this. We really appreciate it. And to all the great questions and comments, I apologize that we could not get to you all. We do try to end on time here at the Council. So that is what we will do. We will send a link to the webinar recording and transcript as soon as it’s posted so that you can take a look again and share it with your colleagues. Until then, you can follow Jenna on Twitter at @profjennabednar and Justice Cuéllar through the Carnegie Endowment. Their Twitter handle is @CarnegieEndow. And, in the meantime, I hope you’ll visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis, and also just feel free to email us, [email protected], to let us know how else we can support the important work you’re doing and any topics you would like us to cover in future webinars. So, again, thank you to Jenna and Tino. CUÉLLAR: Thank you very much, Irina. You did a great job. BEDNAR: Yeah. Thank you, everyone. FASKIANOS: Thank you both. END
  • Climate Change
    Adapting to a Changing Climate
    Play
    Alice C. Hill, senior fellow for energy and the environment at CFR, and Leslie Chapman-Henderson, president and CEO of the nonprofit Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH), discuss factoring the risks from changing climate conditions into policy planning and building codes that safeguard homes against natural disasters. TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. We’re delighted to have participants from forty-one U.S. states and territories to talk about “Adapting to a Changing Climate.” So we appreciate your being with us for today’s discussion, which is on the record. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. And, as always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. So we’re pleased to have Leslie Chapman-Henderson and Alice Hill with us today. Leslie Chapman-Henderson is the president and CEO of the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, the country’s leading advocacy organization for strengthening homes from natural disasters. She recently developed and launched the award-winning National Hurricane Resilience Initiative, #hurricanestrong, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Association, FEMA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Weather Channel. She serves as a co-chair for the My Safe Florida Home Advisory Council, enacted by the Florida state legislature, and as a board trustee of Florida International University’s Hurricane Research Center, and as the Florida gubernatorial appointee to the FCC’s Warning Alert and Response Committee. Alice Hill is the David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment here at CFR. Previously, she served as special assistant and senior director for resilience policy on the National Security Council staff under President Obama and as senior counselor to the secretary of homeland security, where she developed the department’s first-ever climate adaptation plan. Judge Hill is the author of the book The Fight for Climate After COVID-19. And she is also the co-author of the book, Building a Resilient Tomorrow. So thank you both for being with us today. Alice, I’d like to begin with you, to have you set the stage by talking about the primary concerns facing U.S. cities and states today vis-à-vis climate change, and what kind of—I can’t speak today—strategies and policies that you found to be most efficient and effective for dealing with them. HILL: Well, thank you so much for having me. It’s really an honor and a pleasure to be able to speak with everyone about this very important challenge, which has manifested itself before our eyes this year. Really, Americans can look out their windows and see climate change in action. For many years, we thought that climate change was a matter for the distant future. Most of our efforts focused on the cutting of emissions, the cutting of that blanket—accumulation of emissions around the globe.  That blanket that essentially trapped heat, just as it did when your mom threw a blanket on you when you were asleep at night. And has heated up global temperatures to about above 1.1 degrees Celsius, as a global average. And that’s, the scientists tell us unequivocally, as a result of human activity, the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, forming that blanket, from the industrial times. Pre-industrial times, it was about 280 parts per million. Now at Mauna Loa observatory, an observatory in Hawaii that has been measuring the accumulation of carbon since 1958, unfortunately, this May there was the highest-ever average reported number, 421 parts per million. And so why do we care about that? Because it brings these devastating impacts that communities across the United States have been experiencing. Whether it’s in the western states with extended drought, the worst drought in 1,200 years, wildfire threats. We’re seeing bigger, hotter wildfires form their own weather, firenadoes, those in the west I’m sure have heard of. Of course, flooding, very dramatic examples of that in terms of Kentucky this year. And just seeing what emergency managers call rain bombs—so much rain falling at once that none of our cities are ready to absorb that kind of rainfall. And we see flooding.  And then, of course, we have seen extreme heat events. Those are the most certain of events, and the most—events most closely tied to climate. We have a whole new area of science called attribution science. And that traces the fingerprints of climate change on various events. And that terrible heat wave we had not so long ago in the Pacific Northwest—heat, of course, is a big killer—scientists told us it wouldn’t have happened for that length without climate change. So we’re seeing all these dramatic effects on the ground. And the fundamental challenge for all of us is that the environment that we have enjoyed for the last eight thousand, ten thousand years—that time in which human civilization flourished, that climate was a stable climate. And it’s no longer stable. We’re seeing the acceleration of the climate impacts not quite but almost in real-time. And in the decades going forward, we will see more of these impacts. So although we all—many of us assume, oh, that’s the worst it could be. Ian’s the worst it could be. That’s just not the case. We will see bigger storms. We don’t know the frequency, but we’ll see bigger storms going forward. And the question is then are we prepared? And we have built an environment—our building codes reflect this, our land use choices reflect this, our dependence, our assumptions about what ecosystems we can rely on assume this—assume a stable climate. They assume that the climate of the future will resemble the past. And that’s simply no longer true. The climate of the future will be very different from the past. So if we continue to build as we’ve built in the past and live as we’ve lived in the past, we’re at great risk. Unfortunately, we’ve seen—in addition to the changing climate—we’ve seen many more people moving into areas at risk. That includes along our coasts. We all like to live near water. It also includes that wildland-urban interface, that area that’s near or in wildlands. And those areas are also more prone to fire. So what we’re discovering is that we have many people who are trapped. Either they’re trapped because they’re in an area of land that’s too soggy or it will burn, or they’re trapped financially. They cannot get out. They can’t pay the insurance premiums in California or in our coastal states. Or their community is trapped. And it’s trapped in a downward spiral as taxes go down, as kids can’t get to school, as people can’t get to work. And there’s a downward spiral for everyone involved. So the question for all of us is, what are we going to do about this? And those changes will primarily, in the United States, occur at the state and local, tribal, territorial, level of government. The federal government can give incentives, as it has very much so in the recent Inflation Reduction Act. But it really doesn’t make the choices on the ground as to how and where we build. And that’s why it’s so important that state, local, tribal, territorial governments look closely at their risk, and figure out what’s ahead, and then how do we respond appropriately to avoid having people be trapped and avoid having people die as a result of these accelerating climate impacts. So I’m looking forward to the discussion. It’s such a pleasure to join you. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Alice. And, Leslie, let’s go to you. Obviously, with your experience with hurricanes—we just saw Hurricane Ian hit Florida and up the coast so hard. Can you talk about the steps local governments and consumers can take to protect against these kinds of disasters and any trends or shifts you’re seeing in building practices and codes? CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: Sure. Thanks, Irina. Great to be here to talk about one of our favorite topics, which is building codes. And our organization has been working and talking and advocating and, you know, looking at this building code question for twenty-four years. We just marked the thirty-year anniversary of Hurricane Andrew, when this conversation really began in earnest after 1992. And across the disaster safety and resilience movement, which is very closely allied with the climate resilience movement because we have so much in common, our chief solution being that the foremost thing, which is building codes, we look back over thirty years and all the progress, the technology, the communication advances, emergency management process advances, systems, and everything else we’ve done, the great unfinished business of our movement is building codes. So approximately three years ago, our very diverse partnership of public, private and nonprofit partners came together under the leadership of DHS and FEMA as well as the private insurance industry. And we said: OK. It’s time to get serious about building codes because you can’t skip over it and have anything turn out better. And with the compounding challenges that Alice so beautifully just laid out, we really have to take a look at how we build, including where we build, and how we’re going to build with disaster safety and resilience in mind, as well as climate.  So one of the things—you know, our role in particular is to put out information and raise awareness and create outreach initiatives because, as we know, behavior change and social change must enjoy the support of the public, because the resources are—you know, we’re always competing for resources. And things like building codes do require resources. So first question we talk about with building codes is why codes? And just to restate some of the obvious—and we’re going to provide some of the great proof points to you as a follow-up for this discussion—there’s tremendous—and I’m going to talk last about probably the most important reason. But first and foremost, thirty years ago we didn’t have the economic proof that we have today. We didn’t have the long-term studies. We didn’t have the NIBS, National Institute for Building Science, benefit-cost ratio that proves that for every dollar spent on building codes you have an $11 return. We didn’t have the FEMA losses avoided study that says in California alone, just for fire and flood, over the next twenty years they’ll see a savings of $132 billion. These studies looked at buildings, disasters, actual buildings and models. And so we have all the economic proof of what we’ve known really intuitively all along, is that these building codes save money, OK? We also know, and what we’ve long talked about, is there’s a very strong case for building codes from a social equity standpoint. Why should the basic protections and the innovations that go into the new versions of the model code not be provided to every homeowner? Why should those safety and innovation upgrades that keep the roof on in high wind, keep the fire from igniting in a wildfire zone—why should those be upgrades? Shouldn’t the baseline construction of a home include what we know to keep that home intact? So building codes are very, very important to ensure that all homes, especially affordable homes, are built the right way.  Because no one can—no one is in a position to withstand the—you know, throes and results of disaster, but especially those in the—you know, in the realm of affordable housing. They have the most to lose and they have the hardest time recovering. And sometimes they never recover. And so we know that that’s another really strong case for building codes. There’s also universal benefits to codes that go beyond our focus on disaster, but just on an everyday blue sky basis—energy efficiency, ordinary fire safety. You know, all the things—plumbing and mechanical, you know, ways that more and more we have to look at things like water. You want all those extras that come with the new versions of the codes that are put forth every three years. But, as I said before, the most important reason for building codes, what we dial into and what we just saw again in Hurricane Ian, is basic efficacy. Building codes work. They prevent damage. They save lives. They prevent injuries. And they prevent damage. We saw—so I want to walk about Ian, because we have been very engaged in Ian, and our partners have been on the ground as early as the day after Ian. And this spans our NSF-funded teams through STEER and our academic partners as well as private sector and government engineers on the ground. One team recently just coming out of the field yesterday.  I told the news, the media, before Ian struck that what I expected we would see is that the damage to the homes would track very closely with the age of the home, ergo the use of, you know, which building code was used. And of course, I wanted to make sure that I knew what I was—you know, that I validated what I predicted. And I talked with the NSF-funded team first. And they said—they described the difference between building performance of older, pre-Andrew building code-era homes and post-Andrew code homes as a bright red line. And this is true for the water and the surge as well as for the high wind. Homes that are elevated and constructive with higher wind standards, they fared better. In fact, many of them survived even on Sanibel Island. So building codes work. And we know they work. And for disasters—for the benefit of codes today and for climate resilience tomorrow, there’s a tremendous, you know, logical case for codes. But there are some practical challenges with codes that come up. And I want to address a couple of those things to you, because we do have some new resources, as well as some new tools, and then after that we can talk about, you know, some of—you know, dig into some of those issues. So when we started really—you know, when we embraced this three years ago and said, OK, it’s time once and for all, we did a two-year study, qualitative and quantitative study, to try to check in with the public and say: Where is the public on building codes? And I bet you can guess. Nowhere at all. The public is not concerned about building codes, to a point, because they assumed that building codes were already handled. They likened building safety to car safety, and they are highly confident that their local, and state, and federal leadership are taking care of them. In our work, when we tested that presumption, it was eight out of ten that said, no, no, I’m not worried about codes at all because no one would let you build me a home if it weren’t just right.  So then we introduced the notion that what would you say and how would you feel if you found out either, A, that you didn’t have a code at all, or that your code didn’t have the hazard-resistant provisions necessary to protect you from something like a flood, or a high wind event, or a wildfire? Everything changed at that point, with both the attention level of those that we worked within the project as well as their expectations of their leadership.  So I pulled a couple of the statements from the research because I think they’re very important. As we probe through the question and the attitude level shifted and people became very engaged with codes. We realized the breadth of our challenge included education of codes, so that they’re not confused with, you know, some of the other historic preservation or zoning or different things. Because codes address the building itself, not where it’s placed. Although those questions are important too, for everything in this realm. One of the things that people told us is we asked them who they—you know, who they were counting on the most. And 90 percent responded their local officials and their state officials to get the building codes in place to protect them. And then we talked at length about the top two groups they were counting on. And it’s logical, they were counting on their builders and their leaders. So the research guided us to an important piece, which is codes are kind of a mystery and nobody even knows what code they have.  So out of that work, we decided that one of our first orders of business was to create transparency on the status of codes. Because how do we fix a problem when we don’t even know what our starting point is? So we have two wonderful resources out there now for expert audiences. We have the BCAT portal, the Build Code Adoption Tracker, manned by FEMA and quarterly updates by engineering review of hazard-resistant provisions in codes.  And then we have the inspect to protect.org transparency solution that we host, with the continuously updated and improved dataset that is consumer-facing, where you can go online to get a red, yellow, green analysis of the building codes where you live. You can get historic codes. And you can also find out, oh, OK, my house was built in 1998. It’s going to give you some recommendations based on your hazards of things you can do to improve the existing home you have. So we have different solutions. We have transparency emerging. What else do we need to enact codes? Well, obviously we need resources. There are now—there’s a newer program through FEMA that followed the DRRA enactment called BRIC. There are building code set-asides. It’s very new. And so it hasn’t had time to really sink in yet, but there are resources there for communities that want to adopt and administer codes. There are also different kinds of—when you have a disaster, you get your other kinds of federal dollars that even with COVID after disaster, or HMGP, dollars can be used for building codes. So there’s increasing flexibility there, recognition that communities that want codes and don’t have them need the resources to support the training and everything else that goes with them.  So those are some of the solutions for codes. I wanted to talk about before we go to Q&A is just talking about some of the typical concerns. The chief concern that you will always hear about codes is that they’re nice to have, but they make the house or the building too expensive. Back to the FEMA multi-year study, the cost of code compliance is 1-2 percent. And that is across a very significant dataset. It is something that pays for itself over time in durability, not to mention the inevitable disaster that comes along.  Another concern we’ve heard before is that small communities can’t adopt codes. But I really, places like Fayetteville, Texas, population 258. They have the building codes, the 2018 models. They use permitting fees to pay for up to about half of the fees necessary to have them. But they do so successfully. Hampshire, West Virginia, population 24,000, they outsource their codes to an engineering firm—or their enforcement—to a firm in Virginia. And there are places in Tennessee and other states where they get together regionally to do mutual aid to adopt and enforce and administer the codes. So codes work. They didn’t used to be cool, but I will tell you they’re cool today because everyone’s seeing in very vivid sense the success just avoiding the disruption—first of all, the life safety and the prevention of injuries—but the idea that, you know, in Hurricane Charley we have many case studies over the year where we go in and look at the relative building performance up or down of homes based on codes. And the idea that, you know, even if you have to evacuate, if you’re able to come back and resume your life, and your community is still intact with its tax base and its potential for growth and quality of life, codes are key to making that happen. So those are my comments on code. And I look forward to the discussion. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much to both of you. So now we want to go to all of you for your questions, comments. You can share what you are doing in your communities. You can either raise your hand on your iPad or your desktop, and when I call on you accept the unmute prompt and state your name and affiliation. Or you can write your question in the Q&A box. I already see we have several there.  So I’m going to start first there with Mike Hays. It’s a two-part question. From a policy standpoint, do you think states and cities should continue to take the lead on greenhouse gas reductions and other measures, or should the federal government continue taking steps such as the Inflation Reduction Act? It’s probably both, but with the politics the way they are which is the fastest? And two, should FEMA and the federal government start telling people where they cannot rebuild? So, Alice, do you want to start with that? HILL: Sure. Very important questions. The first question about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, this is an all-in project. We need all states, all governments, looking at how greenhouse gases can be reduced. Unfortunately, we are seeing these events accelerate. And the scientists on a consensus basis tell us, in our International Panel on Climate Change reports, that every tenth of a degree of increase in heating carries much larger impacts.  So all of us need to have the goal of reducing carbon emissions. And I think governments can play at the local level, just as the federal government is with the Inflation Reduction Act, giving a lot of carrots to drive greater emissions. But that act won’t take us all the way. It will take us to about 40 percent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. But we’re shooting for a 50 percent. And so we need to have private industry and others step up as well to contribute to this effort. And then, as to the issue about FEMA and where people live, you know, we have a challenge here. We’ve all assumed that the climate will be stable. It’s no longer stable. And we’re discovering that some land that we thought was at one time safe to build on is no longer safe. I think that the federal government needs to provide clear assistance on vulnerability analysis that includes flood maps that are accurate. And if it doesn’t provide them, at least provide the source that others should go to.  There are philanthropic sources now where you can type in your address, First Street Foundation, and you can find your risk for your property. But we need that level for communities to understand, hey, this is the kind of heat events you’ll see—flood, drought. We know that these events come in on a very localized way. But we need to share that information across the board. And to the extent we don’t have it, it needs to be created to help planning on the local level.  And I think the federal government also needs to stop subsidizing new development in areas that we know will flood or burn. I do not see the federal interest. It’s not to stop development there, but I do not see the federal interest for taxpayer dollars to subsidize new development in areas at risk. And this is a pattern that the federal government has turned to in the past. We have these highly vulnerable barrier islands that are off our Atlantic Coast. They’re constantly changing and shifting.  And in the ’60s the federal government said: You know, maybe we shouldn’t be pouring money into those barrier islands, because they’re so vulnerable. So we’re going to say, hey, we’re not going to stop your development, but you won’t get federal resources to help you out. And I think that needs to be a clear signal to local governments that they can’t count on the federal government to bail them out of choices that aren’t wise going forward. We have a lot of built stuff already in these areas at risk. And the federal government needs to identify the risk and then figure out different programs to help people move away from risk. And then as we face rebuild, frank discussions about what the risks are going forward, and whether the federal government, for example, would continue to subsidize long-term flood insurance for properties that are therefore repeatedly flooding. Very hard discussions, but if we don’t have those discussions we will find, as we have, that more people have moved into coastal regions than out in recent years.  And more people—it’s the fastest-growing form of development—have moved into the wildland-urban interface, which is prone to burning, than out. We need to have frank discussions about accumulating people there, because there’s risks to health and safety, and then there’s huge economic risks just mounting as we’re placing more people in regions that are hazardous at this point. So I think it’s a very good discussion. A very difficult discussion to have. And a good place to start is new development, in my opinion. FASKIANOS: And I should have said that Mike Hays is the constituent services advisor for Pennsylvania Representative Joseph Ciresi. Leslie, do you have anything to add to that? Or shall I continue on? CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: No, I just agree. I think this is a very—I think it will be a very big conversation out of southwest Florida as well, to be thoughtful about what is rebuild and where, and what kind of solutions can be put in place, just like we saw after Sandy. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take a spoken question from Washington Senator Jesse Salomon. If you can unmute yourself. Q: There we go. Thanks. And, Alice, you kind of just touched on it so I lowered my hand but still got called on. So I will just go ahead and say that I agree with your position. So here in Seattle, rain city USA, rain is fifty days later. It’s still summer-like conditions. The rivers are extremely low. We have wildfires. And we are living in a campfire air environment—unhealthy for all groups. This has been something that showed up about four years ago and is now a regular part of our summer. Tends to show up August/September. So it’s kind of scary. And it’s for hundreds and hundreds of miles, where you just can’t get away from it. So I just want people to know that that’s what we’re experiencing here, and that’s clearly climate change. And so we have a growth management act where we do regulate, to some degree, what I think is irresponsible building, wildland, wildfire interface. We have fires that are burning out of control right now. So we would—you know, I think there are other state governments unrelated to the degree of danger that don’t have as much oversight about where building occurs. And I find that frustrating. And so I’m wondering if private insurance is backing away from wild—you know, building in wildfire interface areas, not—as well as flood-prone areas. And any more thoughts on that? And thank you. FASKIANOS: Alice, do you want to start? HILL: Oh, I can—sure, I can jump in. All very important points. I do think insurance will be a barometer of how we’re doing. Not so much in the flood insurance world, because the flood insurance is a federal program. And that program is trying to get to what we call actuarially sound premiums so that—let’s say you live right next to a river, and it’s in a flood plain, and we know, everybody knows, it’s going to flood. Theoretically, if it were private insurance, you would pay—you would be offered a very high premium, if you could get insurance. That hasn’t been how we’ve done it with our National Flood Insurance Program.  And, by the way, that program was born, again, in the ’60s. Private—we had a bunch of flood events. And private insurers said: We don’t like this risk. This is too risky. We’re going to move out of the private flood insurance for residential—we’re just not going to offer that kind of insurance. And so the federal government stepped in. Unfortunately, as the political process, there were some recommended guardrails for that program, and they weren’t put in place, perhaps for political reasons, that you wouldn’t reinsure repeat flooders. Private insurance won’t do that for you, or the premium is out the roof, and that you would charge actuarially sound rates. That really hasn’t happened. FEMA, who runs the flood insurance program, is driving towards that. But it’s very politically sensitive to actually charge people the cost of what insurance is needed, because the risk is so high. So we have that program for insurance. And then we have private insurance for home property insurance. And that would be, for example, in Florida, or would be for wind and some other kinds of damages to your property. And then in California, we have property insurance, which includes wildfire insurance. I chair a working group for the California Department of Insurance. We issued a report about things that we can do to help preserve the private insurance market, but we have seen insurers say even though California is the world’s sixth-largest insurance market—so there’s a lot of incentive for companies to want to remain there—hmm, this wildfire is getting too risky. In fact, I think in the wildfires of 2017 and 2018, twenty years of profits were wiped out for property insurers in California, those fires were so big.  So we’ve seen pressure on premiums. We’ve seen the California Department of Insurance tell private insurers: You know what? You’re trying to drop people or non-renew people that live in homes that are near areas that are recently burned. We’re not going to let you do that. You have to stay—you have to continue to offer them for another year. That’s not sustainable in the long run. And this will be a challenge for California, how does it get affordable wildfire insurance?  We’re seeing the same thing play out in Florida, Texas, Louisiana. What we’re seeing is that the premiums are going up. In Louisiana they’ve gone up 63 percent. And there are some backup government programs, the citizens programs, often called. Again, I think those were created—started in the ’60s, but some—a response when it gets too expensive there has to be a backup insurer you can’t—simply can’t get insurance because your property is deemed too risky by private insurers, and there’s a backup government-subsidized insurance. But in Florida, we’ve seen exponential growth in the number of people who have to resort to that plan. So this is a brewing crisis. I will say that the Department of Treasury just yesterday said they’re issuing questions to property insurers to try to get to the bottom of how big this risk is and what kind of preparations they’re making. But for those of you in state, local, tribal, territorial governments, you’re going to feel this most acutely right away when homeowners start describing how hard it is for them to insure their property.  And of course, if they go bare and they have no insurance, that has—and it’s widespread that people don’t have insurance—it has very serious consequences for the economic health of the community, because people walk away from their properties, they go into default, the tax base goes down, and they don’t rebuild, they go someplace else because they’ve got to get their lives back in order. And we need to look at the consequences of having an uninsured or diminishing insurance within our communities. It’s not just at household. It has ramifications for adjoining households, because that household is empty, or it's destroyed and never built back.  So really excellent point. And we are at the—frankly, at the beginning of the discussion. And the challenge is that private property insurance only write policies for one year. So they have a big hit, they can say, hey, next year we’re not so interested in offering insurance going forward. And that’s really tough on the real estate market when insurance isn’t available. And it’s often discovered right at the end of the transaction, I’m told, which makes it even more disruptive to closings and just the steady operation of the market. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So we—Leslie’s team just dropped into the Q&A box the resources, the links to the resources, that she mentioned. And we’re putting in the chat. To answer the question, we are also going to send, as a follow-up to this webinar, the link to the video and transcript as well as links to those resources mentioned, so you can get it in various places. So I’m going to go next to Joseph Brooks, county mayor in Claiborne County, Tennessee. While the points made for building codes are all good, how do you suggest rural counties can move in that direction? There is a vast majority of individuals who see building codes as limitations on their property rights. I am in favor of building codes, but I’m looking for insight as to how to move in that direction from others who have faced a similar challenge. Leslie, can—you might want to take that. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: Definitely. So part of the research that was because of that very question because we—again, we started with validating that people are not worried about codes. So how do you advocate for something that people don’t want or don’t understand? And we have to—the political will has to be derived from people wanting it, because it takes resources. So one of the key challenges is communicating the benefit of codes and showing it. This we did the research in 2017 and 2018, and we’re going to retest. Because of the compounding effect—the things that Alice was just talking about with insurance.  I once chaired the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, which is the rainy-day fund for Florida—the multi-billion-dollar fund that now there are some who project that it will be used up from Hurricane Ian, which will precipitate an even more compounding insurance challenge, I should just say crisis, for Florida. But if you start talking about building codes in the context of the solutions they provide, by preventing the losses in the first place on the individual level for you and your life and what it means for you as well as your community, because your neighbors are still there. Their jobs where—the buildings where they work are still there.  You know, communities that have gone down because of disasters that, you know, are not recoverable. And you start demonstrating the benefit of codes from that standpoint and taking away some of the fear of codes in terms of costs. That’s a key, important factor to show that permitting fees, balanced with cooperative agreements, can make codes affordable even for the smallest communities. And there are many who are doing it. We’re running an analysis right now in rural communities and building codes. And many, dozens and dozens, of successful administration of building codes in very small places that are not in larger states with bigger budgets but are in smaller states. And it gets done through a variety of ways. A lot of the resources for building codes—in the old days, you had to buy books. You had to buy them every three years. They were expensive. You had to have personnel. They had to work for you, in your government jurisdiction. That’s just not how it works anymore. The codebooks are available to code officials digitally. They can outsource to—through cooperative agreements. They can either outsource, like West Virginia outsources to an engineering firm in Winchester, Virginia. This is done all the time, and the economies of scale have kicked in and increased. I think that the International Code Council is working very hard on this. And there’s probably a good case here, Irina, for the peer-to-peer kind of conversations specifically about how to administer codes. And then things like the federal grants, that are just coming on, to help with building codes and the standing up of a building code system for a state or local government. There is recognition that you can’t just wave a wand and all of a sudden administer the building code, but the old way that was much harder and more expensive, there are other ways to do it today, and communities are doing it. The asker of this question I think you said was from Tennessee. I remember reading in an article after the Whitesboro, Tennessee flooding disaster, the mayor said: You know, we’d love to have building codes, we just don’t have the resources. And that’s very much the case in many places. But we can overcome the resource gaps, and then I think we communicate effectively to people who benefit from the codes. And in some places—like, right now in Alabama, the homebuilders, which are often opposed to building code enactment, are supporting the application of a statewide building code because they’re recognizing that building codes level the playing field. And if you have one set of codes, you don’t have to change what you learn and do or don’t do when you cross a highway into a different town. So there’s some tremendous benefits there, and through the course of articulating those, minds are changing as well. If there’s any follow-up work to that conversation, I’d be more than happy to help broker those conversations and post and get people together. Because that’s what helps solve it. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Let’s go to Hawaii Representative David Tarnas. Q: Well, hi. I’m David Tarnas, state representative. I chair the Water and Land Committee in the statehouse. Building codes are very effective, and usually get carried out here through the counties. What do you find to be the most useful thing that the state-level statutory support for building coded option—what’s the most effective way that the state legislature could facilitate that happening? Because it’s usually done, like I say, at the county level, right? So do you have model legislation that could help implement building codes effectively? CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: Yeah. There are thirty states that have statewide adopted codes. They have different levels of opt-outs and enforcement, but they’ve adopted it at the state level, then they drop down to the counties, as you said. Often the ideal practice is to adopt the statewide code, allow jurisdictions to exceed it, but the best-case scenario is they can’t reduce it. And that’s really critical for flood insurance, and for flooding, and for flood elevation because the state of Louisiana adopts the model codes on time. I was actually on the commission after Katrina to create a statewide residential building commission, but unfortunately, they X-ed out the flood elevation for a number of years. But based on Ida and Laura and Delta and Zeta, and all of these events, they’re now strongly considering putting it back in. Statewide adoption is the best way to go with the floor. And one of the things that we used to hear in these policy discussions of code adoption is, “Show us some economic proof.” Well, the good news is, like I said, we have that now. There have been—there’s some great academic studies out there. Wharton has a four-to-one return on building code efficacy for Florida. You’ve got that losses avoided that’s looking across the country. So we have the proof points. We didn’t used to. We do now. Anything we can do to support you in those conversations, you’ve got experts at the Insurance Institute for Building and Home Safety has tremendous research. And we have people that will come and testify to support it. You know, third-party experts. So there’s a lot more ammunition to get those codes in place. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Breda Krebs, who’s a resilience communications specialist for Miami-Dade Country. Will there be more federal government support for risk mapping open to all? For example, floodfactor.com used to be such a useful resource for average residents, and now it is a paid service called Risk Factor. Alice, do you have any— CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: I don’t know—yeah, I don’t know what their plans are for that, but I think, I guess, with the risk rating 2.0 program that’s coming in through FEMA, one thing they’ve been trying—they have done, and to Alice’s point, is to diversify the factors upon which the risk is calculated. So it’s not simply a matter of how high anymore. It may be whether or not the home has proper elevation, plus things like flood vents, you know, to allow for flow-through. Just sidebar on that, there’s some stories coming out of Ian where people had flood vents that didn’t understand why their building survived, because the flood vent allows—you know, evens out the hydrostatic forces, so the walls don’t collapse in a flood. And they were mad that the water came through.  But that was a success story because that’s how they’re designed. Just again, to me, it points up, we have so much educating to do so people really understand: If you’re going to be in those zones, you have to have these features. And this is how they work. People just aren’t as curious about their homes beyond the aesthetics. They’re naturally looking at paint colors and all the pretty, shiny things in the kitchen, and other items. And this is a shift that’s taking time. But I think the disasters that are striking us are opening eyes.  FASKIANOS: Well, that brings up an interesting question from Betty Arnold. I serve on the State Board of Education in Kansas. From an education point of view, for public education—she’s looking—talking specifically about K-12—what should our takeaway be? And how would we incorporate the subject into our curriculum? Maybe we need to start younger to educate. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: Well, I’ll take first on that. I would tell you, one of the most effective things we’ve ever done—we’ll go anywhere for any audience. We’re a certified provider of professional training and accredited courses for design professionals. But the most impactful thing we ever did is we were—joined forces with our nation’s perhaps greatest storytellers at Disney. We were in Epcot for eight years and we created one of their edutainment experiences called “Storm Struck: A Tale of Two Homes.” And it was a 3-D experience with the glasses. Five-point-eight million people came through “Storm Struck” before we finished. And Carnegie tested it. And we changed people’s opinions, we changed their behavior. And it was through storytelling. But you’re right, we do have to get the kids.  There are a lot of different resources for—that can be absorbed into education. You know, we have the NOAA Hurricane Awareness Tour that goes out. Not to Kansas, but to different efforts. There’s no single effort, but I think that we have to touch every audience. And what “Storm Struck” taught us is that we create a value for things like how homes are built. It was—it was a foreign concept in the beginning. And through the testing and the one-year follow-on study validating, people were shocked to learn that not all homes were built to the same standard. But once they did realize that, they wanted to learn how they could be—make a difference. So we’ll look at additional kid-focused programs and different elements that you could adopt into your curriculum. They do exist. We created some through our work with Disney. And that, on the disaster side, we could be happy to share those. FASKIANOS: Alice, is there anything happening at the, you know, federal level? HILL: I’m not aware of anything at the federal level, but I will make an observation that one of our greatest challenges making good decisions around climate change is that we don’t have a well-educated workforce about climate change. You know, anyone who got their degree in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, maybe even in the 2000s, probably didn’t get much education about climate change. And it’s still hit or miss. You know, if you go to a college or a university and type in the English curriculum, they’ll give you a whole lineup about what you need. If you type in climate change, it could be a jumble of classes. And that kid has to have a lot of initiative if they want to learn about climate change. Unfortunately, this plays out at the highest levels. I think that our federal workforce still lacks sufficient numbers of people who understand the challenges posed by climate change and how it could affect their decision-making. And a recent study by a risk management company looking at the CFOs and CEOs of hundreds of companies doing $100 billion in revenues, determined that 77 percent of those were ill-prepared for climate risk. So many of our companies are ill-prepared. And then a separate study by NYU’s Stern Business School in 2019, the Fortune 100 top companies, their board members—1,188 board members—found that only—in a review of their resumes that were publicly available—only two listed anything to do with climate change. So we may have—be asking people to make decisions about an area for which they haven’t had an opportunity to learn about what’s at stake. And I think making more opportunities easily available will help us. These events will continue to worsen, even if we’re very successful in cutting our emissions, which I very much hope we do, because there’s a delayed response. It’s kind of like that blanket that you mom put on, there’s going to be a delayed response. We will see worsening events. And we need people who understand how those events could unfold, how we could better protect ourselves, what are the choices we could make now that would reduce our risks. You know, we’ve heard about the $1 to $11 for building codes. We know just generally, for every dollar we spend now in risk reduction—from that same National Institute of Building Sciences Study—we save somewhere between $4 and $6, likely, in recovery costs. So we need a paradigm shift to help people understand that you need to prepare for disasters, because more of them are coming. And we also need to shift away from just focusing on life safety, which is very important, but also how do these buildings perform. Because it’s one thing if we get everyone out and they’re safe. It’s another thing if we have a school that the kids can go back to. Because if we don’t, what’s our plan? So we need a workforce that understands these risks. So I am in favor of greater education. It will be affecting all of us during our lifetimes, but it will affect the kids even more than it’s affecting us now. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And I just want to commend to you, Brenda, we have launched here at CFR a World 101. It’s a library of free multimedia resources to provide an immersive learning experience in a variety of settings. And we have, on all sorts of topics, but we have a module on climate change. So you can go to world101.cfr.org and look specifically at our climate change module. And maybe that’s something you could pull into your curriculum in Kansas. So I’ll just give that shout-out. OK, so let’s see, going next to—I’m going to go to Diana Hopkins Manuelian. And Diana is—I’m trying to pull it up—a city council member in Atherton Town, California. Our California city is interested in banning leaf blowers during—on specific days. What agency do we have to aid in exploring creating this type of policy? Bay Area Air Quality Agency says it’s a good idea, but they don’t track particulates after they leave the air. Alice, since you are—you were in California, do you have any— HILL: I don’t—I am not familiar with this issue. I am familiar in the District of Columbia, where I live, I believe that we have banned—and the ban may not have come into place yet—fossil fuel-powered leaf blowers for electric, because they reduce the noise. But I don’t know fully this issue, so I can’t offer any insight at this time. FASKIANOS: OK. All right. So getting in another one from E. Keith Colston, director of the Ethnic Commissions Governor’s Office of Community Initiatives in Maryland, Commission on Indian Affairs. Two-part question. How are state-recognized tribes being engaged directly or indirectly in Maryland or this region? How can our commission assist with the approval of commissioner consent? I don’t know if either of you know that specifically. It might be a little bit too—we’ll have to—Leslie. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: I don’t. But I did want to mention the—and, Alice, you probably had a hand in this anyway, but the new White House national initiative to advance building codes was kicked off on June 1. And I know that as part of the implementation and outreach for that we are in a—I serve on the building code secretariat and working group for that under FEMA. And the outreach includes workshops. They recently completed a workshop on the initiative for tribal and state and other partners. And so there’s an outreach effort underway right now that’s very robust, and I think will be continuous, to help everybody understand the goals, the resources, some of the things we’ve talked about here, and it does include all the different states and territories and tribal partners. One of the other things on resources, we do have a host of additional FEMA-produced resources, including adoption handbooks for jurisdictions and for states. And we’ll include those in the follow-up as well. They understand this—going back to the challenge—communication and helping people see the benefit, overcoming the concerns about cost and all these different resources. So there’s a lot moving out, and we’ll make sure that you have all of those, because the different pieces that can be addressed—this is a tricky one. It’s a very tough challenge to get these things in place.  But once they’re there and well-maintained, the benefits for insurability and affordability—not just the availability of insurance, but how affordable it is and some of the returns you get every year on savings. So I’ll make sure that we get all those to you, Irina. FASKIANOS: Great. Alice, any final remarks before we close? HILL: I will say, as distressing as these events are, I view this as also an exciting time. There’s huge opportunity for innovation, for rethinking our approaches, and for collaboration. One of the things about climate change is that humanity, humans, haven’t really confronted this challenge before, where the future does not resemble the past in terms of natural disasters. So we can all learn from each other. We can share best practices. It will be incumbent for us to reach out across regions because, of course, none of these disasters honor our jurisdictional boundaries. And we’ll be a lot better off if we plan together, resource together. So I see it as a moment of innovation, even as we are saddened to see the changes that climate change brings. But for each of us who engage in this area, I think it brings great excitement that we can produce a better future if we put our minds to it now and prepare. FASKIANOS: Leslie, you get the final word. CHAPMAN-HENDERSON: Well, thank you so much. I think what I want to say—I want to echo your sentiment. I think there’s a lot of hope that comes out of our concerns for how we build, because in my experience over these thirty-plus years, I’ve never seen so much focused effort on helping the states, the locals, the citizens, and others get the building codes that they need in place. And let’s not forget, building codes are minimum. So we need to help bring everybody up. But I see across all the different potential ways to help I see solutions coming online, I see resources. They are pre-disaster, not post-disaster. And I have great hope that this is—the great unfinished of our movement is about to get a checkbox. It’s going to take us a couple more years, but I really believe that we’ve got the right people and level of attention, resources, and effort in place to get it done. FASKIANOS: Well, thank you very much, both of you, for this hour, and to all of you for your questions. We really appreciate it, sharing your expertise and all the research that you have done to—and the work that you’re doing in your communities. So we will send a link to the webinar recording and the transcript, as well as links to the resources mentioned. You can follow Leslie Chapman-Henderson on Twitter at @lchenderson. And you can follow Alice Hill’s work at CFR.org and on Twitter at @alice_c_hill. We also encourage you to come to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis. And please do email us, [email protected], to let us know how CFR can support the important work you are doing in your communities. Stay safe and well. Thank you for your time today. And we look forward to our next conversation. (END)  
  • Inequality
    Gender Equality and Amplifying Women's Voices
    Play
    Ann Norris, senior fellow for women and foreign policy at CFR, along with Meredith Martino, executive director of Women in Government, discuss women’s rights efforts and amplifying female voices in government. TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. We are delighted to have participants from forty-seven U.S. states and territories, so thank you for taking the time to join us for this discussion, which is on the record. CFR is an independent, non-partisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, we serve as a resource on international issue affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics and a forum for best practices. We are pleased to have Ann Norris and Meredith Martino with us to talk about gender equality and amplifying women’s voices. Ann Norris is senior fellow for women and foreign policy at CFR. She has over two decades of experience working on gender equality issues at the federal, state, and local levels. She previously served at State Department as senior advisor to the ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues, and she recently authored a report—which we’ve circulated to you—entitled Renewing the Global Architecture for Gender Equality. Meredith Martino is the executive director of Women in Government, a bipartisan organization which convenes U.S. state legislators to amplify the work of female lawmakers. She previously served as vice president of membership and sponsorship at the American Association of Port Authorities. So thank you both for being with us. Ann, I thought we would begin with you, for you to set the stage with an overview of the state of gender equality around the world and the challenges we still face. ANN NORRIS: Thank you all for joining me today—joining today. So as Irina mentioned I recently wrote a paper for the Council on Foreign Relations entitled Renewing the Global Architecture for Gender Equality. And what that paper really looked at was why, despite decades of effort, we are not really where we need to be in terms of gender equality, which we can define as the same treatment of all peoples regardless of gender identity. Yes, there has been significant progress, and I can give you a few examples. More women are being elected to office around the world. Last time the proportion of women in parliaments reached an all-time high for about 25 percent. More women are also rising—albeit slowly—to the top ranks of the business world. Today roughly 8.8 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women, for a total of forty-four women. This is up from seven in 2002. Some key health outcomes have also improved significantly. For example, from 2000 to 2017, the global maternal mortality rate—or the percentage of women dying in pregnancy and childbirth—declined by 38 percent. And just this week, according to the Pew Research organization, we learned that women now outnumber men in the college-educated labor force in the United States. But despite pockets of progress there is still a long way to go. As I’m sure many of you know, countries are working toward achieving the sustainable development goals set by the United Nations General Assembly by 2030, and Goal Number 5 focuses on what we are talking about today, to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Earlier this year, an organization called Equal Measures 2030 released a report detailing progress to date, and it found of the 144 countries that it looked at, less than a quarter of those countries are making fast progress toward gender equality, while a third of them are making no progress at all, and others still are actually moving backwards. Let me give you a few examples of where we’re really falling short. According to UNESCO, there are roughly 129 million girls around the world out of school—32 million primary—of primary school age and 97 million out of secondary school, and this leads to a whole host of terrible outcomes: increasing the risk of child marriage, gender-based violence, poverty, and even a higher risk of HIV/AIDS. Globally, over 2.7 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. One in three women globally will be affected by gender-based violence which leads to a whole host of challenges, and globally, despite making up a significant portion of the world’s agricultural workforce, less than 20 percent of the world’s landowners are women, and many women are prevented from inheriting land, and it leads to a whole horrible cycle of poverty and pushing families into poverty when a spouse dies. So why is it important that we try to solve these problems? The reality is that advancing gender equality is key to helping us solve nearly every challenge we face, including such things as climate change, including the health of children and their families, breaking the cycle of poverty, and increasing security and stability in communities. Women are critical to addressing climate change. In fact, studies have shown that countries with greater levels of gender equality have lower CO2 emissions. Women are also more likely to help their communities make better choices with adaptation and mitigations, climate change. Women are also essential to security issues; in fact, the participation of women in a peace deal makes it more likely that that peace deal will endure—if you bring women to the table. And states with higher levels of gender equality are less likely to use military force to resolve conflicts with other countries. Women are also vital to economic growth. Studies show that if women were given the same access to economic resources as men—an opportunity—would add trillions to the global GDP. So I’m going to go back to my original point. Why, despite efforts of—decades of effort on these issues and so much evidence showing why it’s important, have we fallen so short? Yes, we have entrenched, misogynistic leaders around the world, and there’s been democratic backsliding, but I think the reality is that efforts to advance gender equality have fallen short because of a lack of political will, insufficient resources, and unclear objectives. Many political leaders say they are committed to advancing gender equality, but at the end of the day, other issues take precedent, there are crises to respond to, resources are short, or they don’t exactly know how to follow through on implementation. I think a lot of people really want to do the right thing, but they don’t know exactly how to do it. The paper that I did for CFR really looked at the institutions that we’ve set up to address these problems. And what really became clear is that it’s not the institutions themselves that are going to solve; it’s the leaders who are bringing their political will and resources to bear who will actually help us make the change that we need. I’m going to give you a quick example of where I think we’ve really failed in an institution. In 2010 the international community decided that we needed to set up an organization call U.N. Women, and it was really touted at the time as the solution to these challenges. And then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was a watershed moment and argued that it was going to be really difficult for the world to ignore these problems. They decided at the time the organization would need an annual budget of $500 million a year, a figure that many activists hoped to see grow to one billion. Yet it took U.N. Women nearly a decade to even get to that 500 million figure; it’s barely over it today. This was 2010; it’s 2022. And the United States, which is viewed as—I worked for the U.S. government for a long time—viewed as a champion in this space—gave U.N. Women $20 million to address the challenge in 2021—$20 million to address challenges facing all women all over the world. We give—the U.S. gives the U.N. roughly $11 billion a year, so 20 million—and that’s not a—it’s hard to process, 20 million went to U.N. Women. And yes, the U.S. deserves lots of credit for the work that it does, but $20 million doesn’t really show—doesn’t really say that we are showing up and we are making gender equality a priority. What we need to do now is motivate more people, including policymakers at the international, local, and state levels, private businesses, and others to make gender equality a sustained priority and translate best practices into action. This means political will at the highest levels, and it also means money. I think for a long time the gender community tried to pretend we could do this without money, but it’s going to take money to finance women-owned businesses, to get girls into school, to pay for health care, and to make sure that there really is a level playing field. And it’s important because it’s going to help us solve all of the problems that we want to face today—that we face today and need to solve. If we continue on our current trajectory and don’t accelerate efforts, the World Economic Forum estimates that we’ll take another 132 years for us to achieve gender equality around the world. And I really think we can do better than that. So thanks. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Ann. That is very sobering. Meredith, let’s go to you now to discuss women’s representation in state governments here across the United States. MEREDITH MARTINO: Yeah, thanks, Irina, and thanks for having me today. I’m excited to be here and to join this conversation on behalf of Women in Government. Women in Government exists to support and serve women state legislators across the United States. We are non-partisan. We are led by an all-legislator board of directors from across the country who bring a wide variety of experiences, ideologies, and geographies to the table, which is really valuable. So in the U.S.—and I will say that the statistics that I’m about to cite come primarily from the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University, and also the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is a trade group based in Denver that works exclusively with state legislators. There’s about 7,400 state legislators in the United States. Every state except Nebraska has bicameral legislatures, so two different bodies if you think of it like a House and a Senate. They use different names, but there is sort of an upper chamber and a lower chamber. Nebraska is the lone exception with a unicameral legislature, so there’s actually ninety-nine state legislative bodies in the United States. And of those 7,400 state legislators, about 2,250 of them are women, so about 30 percent of women—excuse me—of state legislators are women. So that doesn’t capture, you know, the participation in governor’s mansions, in the Congress, you know, other state offices like attorney general or lieutenant governor, but women hold about 30 percent of the state legislative offices. Now that could change with an election coming up—could change for the better; it could change for the worse. CAWP estimates that there’s just over 3,550 women who made it through the primary season—you know, we’re finally done with primaries. We finished up in September. And 3,552 women are on the ballot for state legislative office this fall. And that’s an uptick from 3,446 women in 2020. Will all those women win? You know, we’re not sure. About two-thirds of women won their races in 2020, so given the fact that the numbers are higher in 2022, we’re hoping to see an increase. But you never know. It’s an election year. It’s also a once-every-ten-years redistricting election year, so even state legislators who are kind of comfortably ensconced incumbents are facing some really tough reelection races in certain instances because 40, 50, 60 percent of their district might be new based on the way that the maps were drawn and finalized. One thing that I would point out among the women’s participation in women state legislators is that about two-thirds of women state legislators are Democrats and one-third of women state legislators are Republicans. And when you think about the fact that Republicans actually control the majority of state legislatures in the country, about 37, I think or so, are Republican-controlled or under split control. What that means is that in those states where you have a heavy Republican majority, women are often kind of disproportionately underrepresented in the majority party, and in states where Democrats are in control, you often have really robust, almost parity numbers. And in Nevada—I think it’s Nevada, there’s actually a majority of women in the legislature. I think Nevada is the only state in the country to have more than 50 percent of their legislators are women. So when you hear those kind of national numbers, you know, it sounds like, oh, OK, 30 percent of women, you know, that doesn’t sound bad, but when you look at any given state, it’s not exactly 30 percent. And then when you—again, you look at the state’s party control; i.e., who is setting the legislative agenda, who is determining, you know, what committees they’re going to work on, who is chairing those committees, and you look at the representation of women in the majority party, the picture becomes a little bit more skewed. I will say that NCSL expects that there is going to be a higher level of turnover among state legislators this year than usual because of the redistricting, but also because of things that are impacting federal legislation, too, right? There’s a lot of uncertainly about, for example, you know, the Dobbs decision at the Supreme Court level and how that is going to motivate or impact voter turnout on both sides of the aisle, right? There is not really a clear picture of exactly what’s going to happen. You know, there’s still a lot of really, you know, kind of pressing issues on the minds of voters. And so we’ll have to see what happens. But NCSL is anticipating that as many as 15 percent of legislators—state legislators could be new starting in 2023. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you both for those introductions. Let’s open up to the group now for questions. So you can submit your question by raising your hand and asking your question, and I will call on you, or else click on the Q&A icon and write your question there. And if you do that, please say your—give us your affiliation so that we can know where you are coming from. And don’t be shy. So we have the first question from Catherine Leonard. If you can unmute yourself and give us your affiliation, that would be great. You need to unmute yourself. I think you were unmuted, but—Catherine? OK, I’m going to—while Catherine is trying to unmute, I’m going to go to a raised hand mayor. There we go. Q: Hi. I’m the mayor of Middleton. My name is Gurdip Brar, and I have a question for both of you. If there’s one thing which you could change to make it better for women, what would that be? And I will just tell you that in case of Middleton, the majority of the—majority on the city council is women—there’s five to three—and then the mayor has an opportunity to make appointments to all various citizens committees. And when I started six years ago, they were ready to—well, much less proportion of women, and now it’s about fifty-fifty. So it did take about five years, so at least our city council has more women, and our committees are just about fifty-fifty. So what is that one thing which someone could do to make it better for women? FASKIANOS: Who wants to go first? MARTINO: Well, I will say I’m thinking, you know, specifically about women legislators, not so much just sort of women in general. You know, political elected officials—male and female—are subjected to an extraordinary amount of harassment these days, but that harassment is, I think, especially pointed at women leaders. And it is, unfortunately, I think driving some of them away from elected office, and discouraging other women from running or there is a lot of turnover. Women get into office and it’s, you know, harder than they thought it would be in terms of having to grow a thick skin and deal with the trolls online, and you know, people who really—you know, just kind of actively target them—sometimes for the policies, you know, that they are passing, or the positions that they are taking. And I think that does speak to a larger issue in society, right—isn’t that something that could benefit, you know, women everywhere, is, you know, to figure out how to minimize workplace harassment, I mean, because that’s what it is. You know, when you are a sitting state legislator and you are being trolled—I mean, and I’ve talked, you know, with women legislators, you know, anecdotally. One of them has a stalker who is in jail right now; someone who didn’t like her position on a particular issue and, you know, harassed her to the point where a judge saw fit to put that person behind bars for some time. You know, and I don’t think that most women have to deal with that level of harassment in their jobs, but you know, there’s a lot of data out there that shows that, you know, women still have, you know, significant hurdles to overcome in the workplaces in terms of harassment and treatment—from colleagues, from superiors, et cetera, in the workplace. And I would say that, you know, even though we don’t think of, you know, women going to the state capital, as that being her job, and thinking of her being at work the same way that we think of a woman, you know, going to a factory or going to an office or something. But it’s their job, and there are a lot of women, I think, who are targeted for that in an unfair way. FASKIANOS: Ann? NORRIS: So the one thing I would do is make sure that in every organization—mayoral offices, city council offices—that there is a high-level point person who is empowered and kind of tasked with paying attention to these issues because otherwise they get lost, and it doesn’t mean that people don’t want to make sure these things happen; it’s just that everyone is so busy all of the time that if you don’t have the person who is constantly saying, did we think about gender in this—you know, we are going to run this new program in our city. Are we making sure that we are doing everything we can to reach out to make sure that it is accessible to women and girls because it doesn’t always naturally happen? I live in Los Angeles, and the city here had set up a sports program for kind of underserved kids. And lo and behold, a lot of people signed up and they were mostly boys. And the girls—the families didn’t feel safe; you know, they weren’t doing outreach to make sure that the families felt comfortable. So it’s just—it’s little things like that, and once you start thinking about gender in every decision that you make, I think it starts snowballing, and then you start getting more folks excited because it’s going to take a lot of thinking, and there’s a lot of good examples out there of people that are doing it well. But there’s a lot more that needs to be done, so— FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question—written question from Mike Bahleda, who is commissioner in Alexandria, Virginia, for the Environmental Policy Commission. What can organizations such as Women in Government do to encourage more participation by women in Republican politics since that seems to be where women are underrepresented and there is a need for women’s voices? MARTINO: Thanks, Mike, especially as a resident of the city of Alexandria. I’m happy to see you on here and participating. That’s great. I think there is just an issue in general in American politics, right, where we are seeing the ideological middle of both parties being pushed away for more extreme positions—Republican and Democrat. And I think that unfortunately a lot of women politicians—not all—but a lot are the ideological middle of their parties. I think when you start to get out to the extremes of both parties—and again, extreme not necessarily being bad, but just more liberal, more conservative—I think that you see more women who are on the far left than necessarily on the far right. So, you know, I’m not really sure how to sort of solve that issue of the ideological middle being kind of unattractive to a lot of voters these days, but I think that, you know, you—we’re going to see an interesting outcome in the elections this fall, right, as the primaries—again, on both side—have kind of put forward more strident candidates, candidates, you know, who pridefully say they don’t compromise with the other side. It’s going to be interesting to see if those candidates can get through general elections and what the voice ultimately is of independents. You know, again, living here in Virginia, right, we saw several, you know, Democratic governors in a row be followed, you know, and everybody kind of saying that Virginia had gone from red to purple and was now trending blue, and then all of a sudden Virginia made national headlines because we elected a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, who was able to attract those more ideologically mid-voters, and especially the independents. So I think there’s a little bit of a tug-of-war. I’m not really sure this is a good answer, but I think there’s a tug-of-war between candidates that are really palatable to primary voters and candidates that only participate in general elections or, because they are independents, are only eligible to participate in general elections. But that’s just sort of what I’m seeing kind of working with women legislators nationwide. FASKIANOS: Ann, does the lack of—or lower numbers of representation here in the U.S. undermine what we’re trying to do around the world, or, you know, our position on gender equality? NORRIS: Yeah, I mean, I think it does. I mean, the numbers of women in Congress have been growing, but I think that women bring a unique perspective—not always, and there’s great male champions in this space—but it’s hard when you are—you know, you are in another country, you’re trying to explain to them why they need women at the table. I remember going to one—one meeting on gender equality at the U.N. with the female senator that I worked for, and every single person on the other side of the table was a man. There wasn’t—you know, it just—and it doesn’t mean—men need to be included, and their voices are important, but I think women bring a different perspective to the table, and it’s much easier for us to kind of push and advocate for these issues if we lead by example. I mean, one thing—the U.S. government doesn’t have a global women’s issues ambassador right now. We are years into the Biden administration. There was an extraordinary woman nominated. She has had her hearing. She cannot make it through the Congress. And this was the office that I worked in at the State Department. And, I mean, it’s—it makes it really, really challenging when you have to—when you are not leading by example, so to encourage others who are facing a whole range of challenges on a whole range of issues to make this a priority. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. All right. We have a question from—let’s see—Lisa Wright, who is a legislative assistant to D.C. Council Member Robert White. On the data breakdown on elected officials between Democratic versus Republicans, what is the projection for women officials in the next few years, and what can we do to increase the meaningful contribution of women in politics? MARTINO: So, I mean, again I think the projection question is a little tricky with all of the unknowns in the election, but as I said, the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers, you know, has noted that we have more women on the general election ballot this fall than we did two years ago. And they also have some great statistics about the number of women running for federal office, and also running for governor. And I think there is an all-time high—I believe there’s 25 states where there is at least one woman gubernatorial candidate on the ballot. So definitely more women on the ballot, I think, than in recent years, but not sure what the outcome will be. In terms of the meaningful contributions, I think one of the most important things that can happen is to get away from the idea that there are women’s issues. You know, I sometimes hear that from women legislators; you know, especially conservative women legislators who may not, you know—they’re not really into identity politics, you know, they see some of this stuff as being very partisan. And I always say, well, we don’t do women’s issues; we do all the issues. But I think that’s a—that’s a real situation in certain states. I mean, I talked to a women in leadership in a state, and she’s a Republican woman in leadership—I mean, very high up in here chamber—number two, number three in her chamber—and she was running a bill on human trafficking, which is a societal problem, right? It is societal problem that should be addressed, and everyone, you know, who is a contributing member of society should be concerned about human trafficking. And when her party—when her chamber leader, you know, after the bill was voted on, he said to her, you know, I voted on your women’s bill. And I just think that is a real problem when there are certain issues that are kind of seen as like a token nod or a giveaway to women or women’s issues. I think we need to sort of talk about issues in the broader sense of where they fit into our community. You know, when we talk about childcare and elder care, it’s very much to support women’s participation in the workforce. It’s an economic participation issue. But again, if you kind of maybe focus it as a women’s issue, it doesn’t feel as important. It doesn’t feel as valid or as worthy of getting resources and attention and solutions. And so I think that question of participation is important, but I think another thing is to address the meaningfulness of the work that women legislators do, and that’s to sort of just lead on all the issues and not be sort of pigeon-holed and put into things that are seen as women’s issues. FASKIANOS: Right. And Ann, on the global level, at the U.N., is that—I mean, how is it seen? Is it—is the approach more it is a societal issue not a women’s issue? NORRIS: I mean, I think that that is the challenge, is that it was—I mean, I worked—I worked in Congress for a long time. I worked at the State Department for a long time. It was always, you know, here comes the women’s office and we’re going to check the box. I mean, I cannot—we were, like, some special interest group. And as soon as the box was checked, you know, the issue was done. And the bigger point is that it’s—these issues affect everyone—poverty, health care, terrorism, climate change. Like, it’s everyone. And you need everyone who is being impacted by these issues to be—to have a seat at the table and to help in shaping solutions. And that’s what we really need to get at, which is exactly what Meredith was saying. It’s not as—I mean, I cannot tell you how many times we were trying to raise, like, a broad economic issue and, you know, the response was, well, we did that one event four months ago, and there were some women there. You know, and it’s, like, OK, but that doesn’t solve the issue. Like it’s—this is something we all need to be thinking about all the time, because it is going to make the solutions that much better, and that much easier, and that much more sustainable if everyone is part of the policymaking decision process. I mean, it’s important for women to be on the Armed Services Committee. It’s important for women to be on the Environment and Public Works Committee and talking about transportation. They just bring a unique perspective in some ways. So, yes. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Senior Director Dominique Mendiola from Colorado had his hand raised. I don’t know if you still have a question. I’m going to put you on the spot. OK. All right. So I’m going to go next to Lois Reckitt, who has a raised hand. If you can go ahead. Q: Thank you. I’m a legislator in Maine. One of the things that we did at my and a few others’ initiatives at the end of the session last year, I did an analysis of all the committees in the legislation and how many women served on them and on which committees. And it was a fascinating exercise. For instance, there was one woman on the transportation committee and, like, eight on the human services committee, and et cetera, et cetera. But what I did was I sent out a survey to all of the, I confess, Democratic women in the House, where they represent 61 percent of the Democratic caucus in Maine. And I sent it out to them and asked the following question: When you were serving on committee, whatever it was, did something—was anything introduced that anything to do with equity for women? And that was the first question. The second question was, did anybody notice? And the third was, if you come back to that committee the next time what would you do yourself in that arena to move things forward? And it was—the fascinating part to me is that everybody was sort of a combination of amused and intrigued by the second question, which was did anybody notice that there was something that might have impacted women? So I think it—what we’re trying now to do is organize a Women’s Caucus in the legislature, which, to the best of my knowledge, nobody’s ever done in our state. And I don’t quite know why. But we’re working on it now. And we’re trying to do it as a method also to help new women legislators, of which we presumably will have quite a few. But we also have term limits. So, for instance, I’m going to be in my last term. And, you know, I’ve spent six years fighting for a state equal rights amendment and a bunch of other things. And I was going to quit on it this year because there was no hope. But then all the young women said to me, no, no, no, no, no, you have to do that. And I said, OK, fine. But, you know, I think it’s—I think we have to band together, and we have to speak out. And some of the loudest voices that I’ve seen in the last few years in our statehouse are coming from young women who have way less patience than some of us who have been hanging around for a long time doing this stuff, although I’ve only been in the legislature for six years because we pay so badly that you can’t run unless you’re, you know, retired—which is what I am, theoretically. So anyway, I think it’s really important that women just speak out and step forward, and ask the hard questions, and make sure that we are represented. We have one poor woman on the transportation committee. Next year, that’s not going to be the case. We are going to get more than one woman on the transportation committee, because it’s a critical issue for women in so many ways. So we also may have the first woman of color speaker of the house in Maine next year, which would be a really good thing in my view, although I think there’s one or two other candidates. But I think it’s—you know, we just have to step forward and take the risks. MARTINO: I’ll say good luck in forming a Women’s Caucus. I think that’s really important. And I think the states—there are some states where there are—like there’s, like, a partisan women’s caucus, you know, maybe like the democratic women have a caucus. But the states where I think it’s really meaningful are the states where they make the effort to be bipartisan. And one really great example is the state of Missouri. I was in Jefferson City earlier this year, and they have a really strong bipartisan women’s caucus. Those women will sit down and break bread together, they work on projects together. They may vote very differently on the floor of their chamber, but they know how to be, you know, amenable, how to be respectful, how to be civil. And that’s not worth nothing in 2022, right? I think we see a lot of politicians who could—who could use some lessons in that. So I think women can be the grownups at the table to help provide that. And I think being bipartisan is really significant. And while I was there, it was interesting. One of the women legislators told the other women in the room who didn’t know that, you know, she is now—represents a woman who was a former state legislator who helped found the caucus. And the women’s caucus in Missouri was founded because there was—and this was at the time when the Democrats were in power in Missouri—but there was a bill moving through the statehouse to outlaw marital rape. And the Democratic women could not get enough of their Democratic male counterparts to sign onto the bill. So they said, OK, we’re going to go work with the Republican women. And they banded together and formed a caucus and created enough momentum in the chamber to move that bill forward. And then the group has just stayed together and been really robust. And just like Maine, Missouri is also term-limited. So it’s a group that really takes itself seriously, and I think does a lot for civility and respect in Jefferson City. So best of luck. Good luck to you. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. There’s also the comment from Veronica Paiz, who said that she’s been on city council since 2015, a sixty-five-year-old woman. Just won her primary for state representative in Michigan, and is expected the win the general election as her district is strong Dem and I’m a Dem. So looking forward to represent. Also, I’m Latina. So that’s fantastic. If others want to share their stories, we’d love to hear them. There are two questions in the—in the written from Cassandra Carmona, who’s in the office of Assembly member Mike Fong, as well as Derrick Lockridge—and I’m going to combine them—director of external affairs and engagement. So, Cassandra, how can we encourage men in power to invite and empower women to take on leadership roles in government agencies, et cetera? And Derrick’s is, I see a lot of women running for local positions—council, commission, school board—but not most of the main leadership, such as mayor. Is this something that’s happening, you know, endemic across the U.S.? Go ahead. NORRIS: I mean, I think it gets a bit to what Meredith and I were just speaking about, that it’s—we need to make the case that we will see progress when women are at the table. You know, like, to get to—as I mentioned kind of in my early—in my opening remarks, if you have women sitting at the table in a peace negotiation and you are able to achieve an agreement, that agreement is much more likely to hold because it’s accepted by the community at large because women make up—sometimes more than 50 percent—of local communities. And so to get—I think it’s not an include women just because we need to include women. It’s, you know, you are going to be more successful—we are going to be more successful, we are going to be more productive economically, we are going to make better decisions with more lasting outcomes when you have inclusive voices at the table and it’s not just one group making all the decisions that are than kind of imposed on the rest of us. So they will be more successful in their endeavors by bringing in and making sure, and making it a priority. You know, when you are coming to a meeting on an issue that largely impacts women, not to kind of jump back into that women’s issues box, but I don’t even want to step in it, but, you know, childcare, taking care of elder family members, like, make sure that there are women’s voices at the table in those processes. So, I mean, I think it’s just making the case and showing that outcomes are better when we have an inclusive environment. FASKIANOS: Ann—I’m sorry, no Ann. Meredith. MARTINO: Yeah. I think that’s such an important case to make. You know, whether globally or, you know, here in the states. And kind of to the part of the question about, you know, asking why women aren’t necessarily going for the top office, you know, again, we are seeing—you know, looking back at the CWAP statistics, more women, again, running for governor. You know, not sure about mayors. But I will say, you know, when you think about, and Representative Reckitt kind of addressed it, but, you know, the truth is—and Ann just kind of hinted at it—you know, the care—the care economy exists really to support women, right? Women are—the chief care officer of their family. You know, when there’s childcare, when there’s eldercare. Even if they’re not necessarily the main provider, they’re often the administrative person in their family who is—who is figuring out where their preschooler or their aging, you know, parent with dementia can go. And that’s a lot to take on at the same that, you know, you’re—I mean, I think it’s not a coincidence that Ann mentioned the number of female CEOs, you know, for large companies. It’s a hard thing to do when you’re kind of carrying all of these roles and responsibilities for your family and at the same time trying to advance your career. It can be exhausting. And especially in state legislatures, they’re not well-paid. You know, there’s a couple of state legislatures—New York and California jump to mind—where the legislators are paid a meaningful wage and it’s essentially a full-time job that you can have. Most state legislatures, it’s not like that. You know, these people—you know, I have women legislators who are pharmacists, and insurance agents, and, you know, nurses. And, you know, they have active jobs. And then they’re making time alongside those jobs, alongside family obligations to just be in the statehouse. And the idea of stepping into a leadership position, it’s sometimes just too much. So I think, you know, addressing some of those, you know, again, like, larger societal issues would also help women in their ability to be political leaders as well. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We have a raised hand from Katie Scott. Q: Hi. I hope that I am unmuted. FASKIANOS: You are. Q: OK. Hi. My name is Katie Scott. I am a county commissioner from Washtenaw County in Michigan. And I’m so glad that you called on my hand right after this because this was sort of my story. So I’ve been serving as a county commission since 2018. Would love to, you know, continue in that role. But also serve at the statehouse and was asked by people to run in a newly created statehouse seat and state senate seat. And both of them I had to decline because as a single mother who works full time as a nurse, it was taking an enormous pay cut for me, and I couldn’t afford my life. And it’s so frustrating to think that, as a single woman, I could only do this if I was very young and the pay would be meaningful or retired like your previous speaker from Maine talked about. Whereas I know that I have things to offer in that statehouse. And so how—your commentary about the care economy is so spot-on. And I would just like to think, even if I can’t get there at this age hopefully later I can. But what I can do to help women be able to do this and afford to do this, it seems like that’s something tangible we could do. Because I don’t want to see anybody else stopped from leadership positions because of those economic concerns. Thanks for the conversation. I’ve really been enjoying it. FASKIANOS: I want to go next to—thank you for that—to Karen Hanan, who is at the Washington State Arts Commission. And this goes to—within the problem, that is a lack of women in meaningful positions of power, that discrepancy is much greater for women of color or LGBTQI+. Has that improved much over the past few years? Or is it stagnant? What can be done to—on that front? MARTINO: Yeah, you know, and I will say, I don’t know the exact numbers. Again, CWAP has really good statistics where you can actually—I know you can look by race and ethnicity. I’m not sure whether you can look by gender identity or sexual orientation for LGBTQ issues. But there are groups that exist to support certainly minority women, like NOBEL Women, the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women, is a group that’s having its conference, actually, here—well, close by—in National Harbor, Maryland, under the strong leadership and support of several Maryland state legislators. And I think that is one thing that is really important to addressing some of those gaps, is making sure that there are groups and communities for women legislators, especially women of color legislators, like you said, to plug into on a broader scale, because, you know, I’ve talked with women of color who might be, yeah, the only woman of color in their entire chamber or maybe even in some cases in their entire legislature. You know, I was in Oklahoma City for a conference earlier this year, and there was an event hosted by the Black Caucus there. And I think there were eight members of the Oklahoma legislature who formed their Black Caucus. And, you know, so in certain states there can be really small representation. So I think there are groups that exist to try and support, you know, women of color when they get elected. And I know there are organizations like Vote, Run, Lead that really work to recruit women to run for office. And I think they specifically target women of color. I will say that women of color are almost always Democrats. You know, when we look at the breakdown of the Republican versus Democrat. There is more party diversity among Hispanic women state legislators, but when you look at, for example, like, Black women legislators, Native American women legislators, mostly Democrats. Asian American legislators, there are some Republicans but disproportionately Democratic. Among the Hispanic women legislators, there’s a little bit more parity among Democrat and Republican. So, you know, that’s—again, that’s another thing to just sort of think about, that if most of the women of color who are running are Democrats, they’re either going to be in the smaller number of states—again, those, you know, thirteen or fifteen states where Democrats are in power—or they’re likely to be in a super-minority in some of the states where there are Republicans. And it can be tough. You know, whether you’re Republican or Democrat, it can be tough to get things done when you’re in the minority, but especially when you’re in the super-minority. FASKIANOS: Thank you. There are two questions here from Kara Ault, who’s in Ohio, been appointed to the local city council in 2020, and has been reelected. She lives in a very small, rural town in Ohio. And they got equality legislation passed in their community. Great. So we are now one of only thirty-four municipalities in Ohio. She’s been very empowered to move past city council towards state legislation but wants to talk more about the process. Is there a group or center for women to discuss and share information regarding running for state office, and resources? And then I’m going to add onto that, Michelle Proctor. What advice would you give to a single mom new to a state who would like to become more involved? Again, any organizations to join or jobs to seek to accomplish that goal? MARTINO: As I mentioned, I think Vote, Run, Lead is a good group that is really targeting women. But again, I think finding sort of an ideological group to plug into—you know, Republican or Democrat—I think can be a valuable way to get information about that and to, you know, hopefully make some connections and have some conversations about what that really looks like. You know, I can tell you that it’s—fundraising is tough. You know, a lot of women, I think, struggle to have the resources needed to run for state office. You know, they’re not as significant as running for Congress, but it’s not—you know, it’s not free either, right, when you’re running a campaign. And so, again, finding some groups that you can, you know, maybe plug into that would help connect you with financial resources or campaign managers. You know, there’s a professionalization in campaigns that I think a lot of people don’t realize. And I think that would be a good way to take some of the—to address some of the dauntingness of, you know, the idea of how do I start this? You know, is to try to find people who have done it before. And I think those ideological groups or political parties are a good place to start. FASKIANOS: Ann, any suggestions from your perspective of having worked at all different levels? NORRIS: I mean, I think you have to decide if you’re most interested about local issues in your community. And I think Meredith’s suggestions were great. You know, find groups that are working on issues that you care about. I think, whether it’s a local environmental group, or a group working on housing policy, I think there are a lot of opportunities. And you can kind of figure out where your passions lie. I think—I mean, it’s tough as a woman. You know, when I worked for the administration—when I worked for the executive branch—that may have changed—there was zero days of paid maternity leave from the U.S. federal government, OK? There were literally zero days. You could take—I ended up going in the hole a couple of months when I had our daughter, and I had to move—I had to earn that back. So it took me months to be able to use all my vacation days to try—for maternity leave. I just—I think that there are a lot of hurdles that make it hard for women to—and not just women. Men are responsible too. I mean, men need affordable childcare as well. I think we just—I think there are a lot of obstacles that make it difficult for women to get involved and to stay involved for decades. And, I mean, that’s—we need people who want to go into public service, who are passionate about public service. And we need to make it a lot easier for them to be able to do those jobs without it taking such enormous sacrifice. You know, because—and there’s a lot of work that needs to be done, and there’s a lot of good that needs to be done, and we need change in a lot of areas. So, yeah. FASKIANOS: Katie Scott also said: Emerge focuses on training Democratic women for office. So I’m just sharing that. I don’t know that that was mentioned. So we are almost out of time. So there’s one last question from Heather Ferguson Hull. Do you have any thoughts about what factors might make a difference in overcoming the electability hurdle that women presidential candidates face? MARTINO: And I’m going to—I want to hear Ann’s answer on this, because this is some place where the world has done better than us, right? Like, maybe not every country, but there are certainly women prime ministers leading large industrial nations across the world. And so, Ann, what do those countries have that we don’t? NORRIS: I mean, I spend a lot of time talking about this. I think we need to—it needs to be normalized more here. Like, the woman is not the special candidate. The woman has an equal voice. She has as much experience to bear. I think we’re always kind of—you know, I think there are some countries where they assume that the leader is going to be a woman. And here, it’s, like, we’re trying to make a special exception. And I mean, I think it’s just—this stuff takes time. And I think we’re getting there. But I think it’s everything that we do. It gets to Meredith’s earlier point about suggesting that, you know, some issues are just all left to women. You know, like every single issue that we face affects women and men. And women should be viewed as equal, viable candidates, and not something kind of—some special accommodation that needs to be made, because it’s time for a woman president. Like, it is time for a woman president in my opinion—but I think there are—I’ve worked with, for women legislators. And they are powerful, and tenacious, and hardworking. And I am in awe of what they do. It is a tough—I worked in Congress for a very long time. We worked on—I worked for a very liberal California senator. We spent most of our time working with Republican senators on the other side. That’s where we got our best work done. I mean, there is so much to be achieved if kind of we all work together. So we just need to normalize women, and stop making it kind of a niche group, even though that’s—yeah, although we have to continue talking about it until we get there, so. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And, Meredith, any closing thoughts from you? MARTINO: No. I mean, I just completely agree with what Ann said just, you know, in general about, like, I think the less we can talk about women’s issue and just have women be voices solving all the issues, I think that will help. And, Ann, I really appreciated your comments. I mean, it’s great. It was Representative Reckitt about the transportation committee in Maine because, as Irina mentioned at the beginning, I spent seventeen years at the American Association of Port Authorities. And I can tell you, when I started in 2004, you know, I went to my first conference. And I came home, and my family said: How was it? And I said, it was great. And there was no line for the ladies’ room. You know, it was just—but that dynamic over the seventeen years I was there really changed. And the biggest—in the sense of women becoming CEOs of ports, sometimes major ports. And what happened there is not that—to Ann’s point—not that leaders said: We need to have a woman in this role. What happened is that the port commissions started accepting the idea that there were multiple paths to the CEO role, that you didn’t have to have worked at a shipping line or been in the Coast Guard, which are two very male-centric professions. You could be in real estate. You could be in communications. You could be in finance. You could be in human resources. And so that has just changed the background of the leaders of those organizations. And so there are, you know, just kind of coincidentally more women there, but not because anyone said we need to get more women. It was just, like, hey, maybe there’s different paths to rising up to leadership. And so even the men who are, you know, the heads of port authorities now are not all necessarily coming from the exact same path and the exact same background. And so I think that if we can start doing that in politics, I think that’s going to be to society’s benefit, and women will absolutely be swept up in that. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Well, thank you both for this hour conversation, and for all of you for your questions and comments and stories. We all just have to continue to work on this issue. So for resources, Ann Norris, you can find her on CFR.org. We also have a Women Around the World blog, so you should check that out. And with Meredith Martino, go to Women in Government. They have a lot of resources. And again, I will say the National Council of State Legislators is also a wonderful resource for all of you. So thank you both, again. We really appreciate it. And go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis. You can also email [email protected] to let us know how we can continue to support the work you are doing. And I hope you will join us for the next conversation. We will send out an invitation. Thank you all, again. (END)
  • Infrastructure
    A Conversation With Infrastructure Coordinator Mitchell Landrieu
    Play
    Mitchell Landrieu—senior advisor and infrastructure coordinator at the White House, former lieutenant governor of Louisiana, and former mayor of New Orleans— discuss the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) with CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Heidi Crebo-Rediker and share best practices for coordinating efforts among various state and federal agencies, implementing resilient and sustainable technologies, and applying for the state and local grant programs. TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. We are delighted to have all of you, participants from fifty states and five U.S. territories, with us for today’s conversation, which is on the record. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. We’re delighted to have with us today Ms. Crebo-Rediker and Coordinator Landrieu to talk about infrastructure in the conversation coming. We have shared their bios with you, so I will just give you a few highlights. Ms. Crebo-Rediker is an adjunct senior fellow at CFR and a partner at international capital strategies. Prior to coming to CFR, she served at the U.S. Department of State as its first chief economist. And she was also the chief of international finance and economics for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Coordinator Mitch Landrieu is currently serving as senior advisor to the president and responsible for overseeing the coordination and implementation of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law last year. Prior to joining the Biden administration, Coordinator Landrieu served two years as mayor of New Orleans, where he was instrumental in helping the city recover from Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. He also spent sixteen years as a representative in Louisiana statehouse and was elected lieutenant governor of Louisiana from 2004 to 2010. So thank you for being with us today. I’m going to turn it over now to you, Heidi, for the conversation. CREBO-REDIKER: So thanks, Irina. And thank you to everybody who joined today. It’s quite a—it’s quite a crowd. And thank you very much to Mitch Landrieu. He’s a very busy man. He has been in charge of the federal rollout of a very large, historic investment in American infrastructure, the 1.2 trillion dollars. So it’s part formula funding. That’s a system that we’re used to. But part of this has been standing up and coordinating new programs that add multiple and address multiple sometimes new policy objectives that we’ve talked about on some of these calls before, like equity, and resilience, whether it’s climate or cyber, and paying attention to underserved communities. And also to get money out the door fast, because we really need to rebuild our infrastructure. So it’s complicated. You’ve tried to make it easy and transparent. We’ve talked about the build.gov website and the guidebook that you’ve put together on how to use these funds, what to apply for, whom to contact, how to navigate all the myriad of federal agencies that are involved in the deployment. And we hope people have used it. But there are a lot of people who have questions on this call today. I’m just going to kick it off with a question of where we are. We’re almost one year in. What are—you know, what have you seen? What are the lessons learned that can be helpful to the people on this call? And I’ll hand it over to you. Thank you so much. LANDRIEU: Heidi, thanks so much. And thanks, everybody, for joining us. And of course, thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for hosting this event. I’m a big fan of CFR, followed the organization for many years. The director Richard Haass is a great thinker. He wrote a book that I completely agree with, which is that you cannot be strong abroad if you’re not strong at home. And it argues for making sure that in order for us to really protect our national security that foreign policy is a two-headed coin. One of them is domestic policy—or, I should say—our national security is a two-headed coin. One of them is our foreign policy; one is our domestic policy. But they both depend on each other so that America can be strong, and America can actually, what we like to say, win the 21st century. So it’s critically important. If you talk to any of our major leaders that are identified as national security folks, they will tell you that our infrastructure at home is a necessary component part—our physical infrastructure, our human infrastructure—to America being able to meet its obligations on the world stage. So with that framework in mind, it’s also critically important, if America is going to continue to lead the world economically, to make sure that America itself has the tools it needs. So President Biden has come in and, unlike any other president that has served at least in the last sixty to seventy years, passed what we call a once-in-a-generation opportunity to actually catch back what we have not been doing well for the past couple of years, and prepare ourselves for the future, by investing in rebuilding our roads, and our bridges, and our airports, and our ports, all of our waterways, some of our great lakes. Making sure that American citizens, each and every one of them, has access to high-speed internet to make sure that people have equal access to knowledge and can engage in economic development, generational growth, precision agriculture, telemedicine—things that we all know are such a necessity now. As if you didn’t know before COVID, we certainly know it now. Making sure that we prepare ourselves for a clean energy economy. I think everybody knows by now and, you know, our thoughts and prayers as we—as we record this conversation are with the people of Puerto Rico who are being battered once again by another terrible storm as if they haven't had enough already. We continue to deal with the issues of climate change in a real and an impactful way that's going to have a compelling impact on nation’s security, as well as the livelihood of people in American and people outside of America. And then finally, just preparing ourselves for clean energy economy that we know we're going to need. All of those things are part of this bill. Now, we’re ten months into this. We’ve hit the ground running. My team is basically on doing three things. We're building a team to be able to deliver things to the ground. We’re getting the money out of the door. And then we’re trying to tell the story. In the last ten months, we’ve pushed over $110 billion out of the door. And as you said when you when introduced me, there are basically two ways that this money is getting to the ground. Number one, 90 percent of this is going to be deployed by the governors in the mayors to the ground. So we have to get it to them. They’re going to get two ways. One is through formula funding, which should be very familiar to anybody that has worked with the federal government since at least Ronald Reagan has been in office, where the states were really the portals through which federal money came down through pipelines. We basically put money in those pipelines and sent them directly to the governors, whether it's roads, or bridges, or airport, or ports. That's about half of the money. And so for those folks on the local level that are looking for this, you have to engage with your state representatives and your state senators, your congressional delegation, and your governors the same way you would historically engage with them on advocating for money to be spent in your communities. But there’s another half of the bill. And that is money that is going to be directly sent to small communities, medium-sized communities, large communities, tribal communities based on competitive programs that exist in every pocket of this bill. Now, this bill has 375 programs, 125 of them are brand-new, and they span the entire spectrum of what I just talked about earlier. I won’t go through it again, but it basically touches every portion of the bill that you’ll be able to compete for. You can find most of the information about all of these programs in build, B-U-I-L-D, dot gov. It’s got a page for each one of the programs, and it describes what it is, how to get it, who’s got it, what the deadlines are for the applications. And it gives you a pretty good feel for what’s going to happen. There’s also a (book ?) for folks in rural America on rural.gov. And then for folks that want to sign up for high-speed internet, you can go to internet.gov, because our team is trying to come to where people are, and find you where you are, and not wait for you to say how the heck do I get to this money. So that’s a fifty-thousand-foot, very quick view of the most historic piece of legislation that’s been passed in the last fifty years. And I’ll turn it back over to you for further questions. CREBO-REDIKER: So the—so the build.gov website is actually—it’s got a huge amount of information, and all the different programs, and deadlines, and the federal agencies that are involved. But can you talk a little bit about the technical resources that are also available to state and local governments? Because a lot of people don’t know where to start, especially for these funds that you have to compete for. Their offices are overwhelmed. They don’t have the resources to actually fill out the applications. And many of the underserved communities that you’re actually targeting are the ones with the most limited personnel and expertise. And the formulas in the past haven’t necessarily served these communities so well. So just if you could talk a little bit about what resources are out there for state and local governments. LANDRIEU: Well, thank you for that question. You know, when this bill passed—when you say it’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity, it also means that it hasn’t happened in a long time. And so I would have to just give you my opinion that we in the country—I mean, the federal, state, local governments, the not-for-profit sector, the faith-based communities and, you know, other folks—don’t have good muscle memory in how to get money to the ground to do big things, or to do consequential things. And we’re relearning all of these things. So one of my challenges, as the senior advisor and coordinator, is to make sure that the federal government itself, all of these Cabinet secretaries, are using all of their power, all their intellectual capital to coordinate, so that when people want to access us we’re actually user friendly. Which is why we’ve had over fourteen Cabinet meetings, we’re having our fifteenth actually this Thursday coming up, to make sure that we’re communicating. Secondly, I also knew that the federal government has to coordinate very overtly and aggressively and offensively with the states. So on behalf of the president, I’ve spoken to each one of the governors in the country. They have at my request, at the president’s urging, appointed an infrastructure coordinator. And then we began to talk to the mayors and to those organizations that actually are responsive to the question you asked. So the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the United States Conference of Mayors, all of those organizations have been read into and actually have, quote/unquote, “gone to infrastructure school” to understand how technically to get this stuff to the ground. On top of that, we have reached out to the philanthropic organizations across the country—the Ford Foundation, Kresge—led by Bloomberg and the Emerson Collective and a whole host of other ones, who I did not mean to leave out but it would be too long for me to mention every one of them, who are really working through how philanthropy can organize themselves around getting technical assistance to these small communities to actually help them figure out how to do it. I would also encourage everybody on this call to think about two things: How to access the universities in your area that can help you facilitate communications between and amongst all the organizations that I just told you about, and then finally to think about workforce development. One of the things that’s immediately—two things immediately obvious. There’s some people who need technical assistance finding all this stuff, which is what we just spoke to. But the other is just asking yourself the basic question, how do I connect the guy down the street that’s not working to a job that I understand is coming because of this bill? So if you think about just a clean energy side for this, and moving into half the country buying an electric vehicle by a certain date, whatever that might be, you have to start thinking to yourself: Well, if I’m going to buy an electric vehicle, where am I going to plug it in? Where is that going to be? Who’s going to put these EV charging stations in the ground? Who’s actually going to build them? How are we going to train people to build these things? Or you might think to yourself, well, wow, if we’re going to have these electric vehicles, who’s going to manufacture these batteries? Where are these batteries actually going to get manufactured? Well, in the last couple of months, because of the president’s bill, billions of dollars have been noticed by big, big companies that are going to build these manufacturing facilities and these batteries. So people are going to have to put them together. Who are those people? How are they going to be trained? What’s the curriculum to train them? Those kinds of things. And then finally, if you really back it up and ask yourself, well, if we’re going to have electric vehicles and we need electrical vehicle charging stations, and we need batteries, where are we going to get the source material to actually make these things, these critical minerals? Somebody has to mine them. So all of those things have to get done. If you think about high-speed internet and say to yourself, well, who’s going to lay the high-speed internet, and ask yourself, how many people do we need? We have about an 800,000-person gap over the next ten years about how much we have to lay and who’s going to lay them. All of these things portend that we have to redesign our workforce development strategies in our respective communities. And I will end on this point: I just told you that we have a national concern. But the answers are local. So in each one of the neighborhoods of the people who are on this call listening, you have to ask yourself: What’s going to happen in my city? What’s going to happen in my town? What’s going to happen in my county? What are the jobs that are coming our way? What is the governor and the mayor doing to help coordinating? Who are the universities and the workforce training centers? Who are the community and technical colleges that are available? What is the core curriculum that we have to design in order to pair the people that we know with the jobs that we think are coming our way? That has to be put together. And everybody that’s listening on this call is going to have a responsibility for actually designing what that looks like as this money gets down to the ground. That’s not something that the federal government is going to design. We’re providing the money. We’re providing the programs. We’re providing the guidance. But the work has to get done on the ground, where everybody on this call lives. CREBO-REDIKER: So before we start taking questions, and I hope you will all use the raise hand function, we’ll go through the list. And I think what we’ve learned on previous calls, that we actually—we have a lot of know-how and experience on the call, and that we learn a lot from people from all over the country on the ground, and they learn from each other in this forum, because innovation is often more local than federal, no offense. And the— LANDRIEU: No offense taken. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly—that’s exactly—one thing I’ll—not only no offense taken, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to be. And if we set this system up right and we create this virtuous cycle of innovation, those ideas on the ground will kind of percolate back up and then out again. So it’s a great thing. CREBO-REDIKER: So that was my question, how do you—how do these people deliver feedback to you? Because a lot—especially with the new programs you have new regulations, you have new coordination functions and agencies. Is there some way for state and local governments to get feedback to you on how the programs are working, so that it can sort of be an evolving process? LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, constantly. Right now there’s always—whenever these programs get put in place, there’s always a comment period that all of the agencies on the federal level have to receive from the private sector, the public sector, what they think the rules and regulations ought to be. And there are constant feedback loops that we’re working into the design of the programs. As I mentioned to you earlier, I’m in contact with all the governors and all their infrastructure coordinators. And I’m in contact with all of the mayors in America and the county executives. And of course, their respective department heads. Let’s just say, in a city, the head of the Department of Public Works in, you know, Austin, Texas, or the head of the state transportation office in Colorado. We’re constantly getting feedback from them about what works and doesn’t work. So the folks that are on the ground, you ought to be pushing that up and pushing that out through those organizations. On top of that, all of the websites for all of the different departments have feedback loops where you guys can chime in and tell us what’s working and what’s not working. This is going to—we’re iterating every day. And as I said, it’s my personal opinion that the country’s gotten out of the habit of doing big things well together. And there’s a lot of coordination that has to take place before we actually get it right. And so I would encourage people to give constructive counsel and advice about how to move forward. CREBO-REDIKER: Well, that’s it for my questions. The first—the first hand up was Sandra Tooley, who’s a city council member from Valdosta, Georgia. Do you want to—Sandra, do you want to unmute yourself, tell us—you know, I just said where you’re from and what your affiliation is—but what your question is? And thanks for raising your hand. Q: Well, my name—I am Councilwoman Sandra Tooley, city of Valdosta, Georgia. And I was listening to a lot of the comments and information that you were giving us about how we can help some of these smaller businesses or smaller areas who don’t have access to—I guess, get the information about how to, you know, ask for these funds, and everything like that. They are getting left so much behind that we don’t have the education out there for them. I know they say it’s—some people say it’s out there, but how do we get it out to the people in the smaller businesses or the smaller cities that this is what you can do to get there? I don’t know either about how to get information to them. And that’s one of the problems we are finding here. That they don’t know how to fill out some of the forms because they’ve not done it before. They haven’t had that exposure, and I just don’t know. That’s what, I guess, I’m trying to figure out. What is your recommendation for trying to help the companies or business or schools or universities who can teach them that or give them that information that they need? LANDRIEU: No, that’s a good point. And as I said, the organizations that we’ve been partnering with—Bloomberg Philanthropies, for example, has a—has a whole group of people they have pulled together to be available and to provide technical assistance to small communities and towns around the country. You also have each one of the different departments that have technical assistance components, whether it’s the USDA, the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Transportation that are helping do that. And then, of course, council members themselves can go on build.gov and these other tools that we have, getinternet.gov or rural.gov. And a lot of this stuff is self-explanatory. Sandra, the other day I was in Lowndes County, which is not far, you know, from where you live, talking about making sure that folks have access to indoor plumbing. There are a lot of people in America that don’t know there’s millions of people in this country that don’t even have access to outdoor plumbing. There are billions of dollars in this bill that are designed to help those small communities understand that. Now, Sandra, I want to point out to you, just to just repeat what I said when I started, half of this money’s going to your governors. So in states like Alabama and in Georgia, you know, you got to—you got to go hustle your governor and your legislatures. Now, you get into kind of challenges because not all governors get along with all mayors. But this particular bill, the way it’s designed, doesn’t eliminate the need to handle whatever political conversations people would normally have on the ground. The other half of the bill, though, are projects that you can apply for directly that don’t have to go through your governor. So you can identify those as well. And so if you look at those technical tools that we gave you, and look through also the organizations that I’m sure one of your towns or communities is involved in—whether it’s the National Association of Counties, or the National League of Cities, or the U.S. Conference of Mayors. All of these organizations are running down, hopefully to the ground, as well as the technical assistance that’s part of each of the departments in the federal government that’s responsible for the parts of the bill that you’d be interested in, whether it’s EPA, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Commerce, which is where the primary components of the particular bipartisan infrastructure law. CREBO-REDIKER: Thank you so much for that question, Sandra. Can we go to Ann Johnson Stewart? She is a state senator in Minnesota. Q: Good morning. Thank you. Yes, I’m Senator Ann Johnson Stewart. And I appreciate the time today. I just want to echo the concerns of the previous questioner. In addition to being a senator, I’m also a licensed civil engineer and own my own consulting firm. By the way, Mr. Landrieu, I’d love to come work for you so watch for an email from me soon. But I just want to emphasize the challenge here. I’ve been working on this as—I also have an appointment at the university as the local technical assistance program engineer. For a small agency to submit a proposal, it costs roughly $30,000 in staff time. Now, this is documented over and over again. And what we’re seeing, at least in Minnesota, is that many of the cities that have been successful in getting your grants, which we’re very grateful for it, but they have had to hire consultants to do that work for them. Some of the grant applications require a twenty-five to thirty-page project summary, which really—I mean, many people are competent and qualified, but it does require some civil engineering time. And, Mr. Landrieu, I just want to emphasize that this is a bridge that we have to figure out how to connect, the small cities, the tribes, townships. I’ve been teaching culvert repair for years. They could use money to repair culverts. They want it, but they do not have the expertise to write the grants. So please, again, I’d love to follow up with anybody on your staff about this issue, but it is the really small cities and townships who just don’t have the resources. And making that money available—in a state like Minnesota, we can’t do it because we’re not in session right now. We don’t have the means by which we can fund this initiative. And so I don’t want to take up all the time, but I do want to tell you that that is well documented, that it’s costing about $30,000 a grant application. Thank you very much. LANDRIEU: Well, Ann, thank you very much. I appreciate that. My father-in-law is a civil engineer, so there is a great need for universities to—so if you’re—in small towns and counties, you know, all the city council members and even the mayors are all part-time jobs. And everybody’s got another job someplace else. And the school system, primary, secondary, many, many universities, council member like you have as well. And I would really encourage people to think about how to solve these problems on the local level as much as possible. We’re completely aware of the challenge. This is, like, oh, what’s the best way to describe this? When we had the financial crisis back in 2008 and the system got stressed, when we had COVID, writ large, and the system got stressed, I mean, like, right away you see where the holes are, where the dysfunction is, right? Things that we haven’t thought about for a long period of time. The same thing is happening with the infrastructure bill. When you begin to push a whole bunch of money into a number of different streams that had currently existed and you’re creating new ones, you begin to see gaps. And Ann has lifted up one of the real challenges that we have. We know about it. We’re working on it from Washington. It needs to be worked on ground up, and we have to meet it. So we’re talking to the governors, we’re talking to the mayors about this. I will just, you know, communicate to all the folks that are on the ground where you live that you don’t have to wait on us to start putting technical assistance programs together. You can do the same thing. Everybody’s got a little bit of extra juice around, a little bit of extra intellectual capital, a little bit of expertise. You’ve got to tie together the government and the business community and the faith-based community and the not-for-profit sector so that they all are running towards this fire. Now, there’s some big things that are going on that are going to cut across your jurisdictions. Let me run through a couple of them. Making sure that high-speed internet, that the fiber actually gets laid in the right places. Every governor is challenged with coming up with mapping that as we speak. So you should be communicating with your governors’ office that’s in charge of this about that particular thing. The same thing is true about mapping out where electric vehicle charging stations are going to go. There are billions of dollars in this bill to lay down five thousand electric vehicle charging stations on highways and in other places where the private sector is not likely to do it. So that’s another thing that you should be aware of. The third thing is on fortifying the electric grid. All of these things cut across small town jurisdictions, big city jurisdictions, and in some states state jurisdictions. And so the governors are the ones that are being charged with sending these maps to us. The same thing is true, by the way, about getting lead out of—the lead pipes that are moving in and out of people’s homes. Governors and the states are supposed to be coming up with mapping to actually get that stuff done. That’s going to require input from the small towns and small communities that will then be put into a plan and then sent up to us in Washington, D.C., which we can approve or not approve. So all of those things today are happening that you can be working on, while we’re working on the technical assistance from the top all the way down to the bottom. CREBO-REDIKER: So one other thing just to add, because we’ve talked about this on other calls, people at universities or colleges or community colleagues are very good at writing grant proposals. LANDRIEU: Correct. CREBO-REDIKER: So, you know, if you get the mayor to reach out to the head of the community college or the local—you know, your local higher education institution and just say, hey, team effort, we need you—you know, we need your grant writing expertise. And hopefully, it’ll come for free. We have a lot of questions that are very, very similar, along the line of the—of the last two questions, on getting technical assistance. And specifically— LANDRIEU: I neglected—I neglected to say this, that to the extent that your feedback can highlight for us what might be superfluous or duplicative in these applications. We’re all about making it faster and easier for people to apply. Having said that, it is important that we build these things with intention, that we do think about equity, and we do think about high-paying jobs, and we do think about building things with climate and resilience in mind, and we do think about building stuff with products that are made in America. So some of these competitive grants will have requirements in that to show us that that’s exactly how you’re spending the money because we just—the president’s thought was not to just go build a bridge the way it was built before. That you want to build it higher, and bigger, and stronger. You want to build it with cybersecurity in mind. Those kinds of things tend to make applications a little bit, you know, more than they were before. So it just can’t be one page. But that doesn’t mean they have to be thirty and written in a way that people can’t understand. So, again, we’re trying to do two things at once. And we’re completely open to getting better as we go along so that we can get this money out fast and build stuff better. CREBO-REDIKER: So we have a couple of questions that are similar in vein. Alan Propp from D.C.: What are the key considerations you look at when considering grant applications? How do we move from shovel-ready projects towards shovel-worthy projects, while still be realistic about what projects we can accomplish? And we have an additional follow-up from Salt Lake City, Ben Luedtke, who said basically the same question, should we submit the project designs and then second submit a later application to fund the construction? Which needs to come first, and in what order, and how do you—how do you suggest they approach this? LANDRIEU: Thank you. Well, first of all, my office doesn’t make any selections for any projects in any one of the areas. I’m coordinating the activity of basically fourteen Cabinet agencies. Most, if not all, of the selections, at least on the competitive side of this, will be made by the Cabinet secretaries after a vetting process that staff from those different agencies go through. However, when those, what they call I hate federal acronyms—NOFOs, notices of funding opportunities, that’s a notice that the federal government sends out that says: Hey, we’re going to give out a billion dollars to fix bridges, or we’re going to give out a million bucks to lay high-speed internet, or we’re going to give our $500,000 to invest in ports and airports, et cetera. They will have in that the kinds of criteria that you have to be responsive to. Now, again, we want to build things fast, shovel-ready. But we also want to build them right. And so build them right is really a value judgment. And President Biden believes that equity is really important, that we use this money to build generational wealth, that we use this money to get into tribal communities, into small communities, and not just the strongest survive kind of communities that have the kind of money to show up fast and first. So there is a little bit of a tension between speed, getting it done, and then getting it done right. And so there are some—there are some value judgments that are written into these applications. And equity is one of them. Again, climate is one of them. We want to make sure that, as has been demonstrated time and time again—I’m from New Orleans. You know my city got beat to death by Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav, the national recession, the BP oil spill. It doesn’t make any sense to go build something back the way it was if it’s not able to withstand the kinds of things that are coming our way right now. So you want to build bridges back with the good material. You want to build them stronger. You want to think about cybersecurity. It's also important that we build with products that are made in America. Now folks are going to say, well, we can’t find all the products that are made in America. But we want to incentivize manufacturing here in America. Since the president’s been in office, he’s created 678,000 manufacturing jobs, the largest number that has been created in many, many, many years. And that’s because of the incentives of this bill. We want people manufacturing things in America. And so, as a consequence of this bill, I think that there’s been—I don’t want to call the number, I’m going to get it wrong—but a large number of billions of dollars of investments that have been announced by manufacturers who are starting to respond to this, because this is going to build generational wealth. The president believes that unions built the middle class, and the middle class built America. He wants folks getting high-paid, you know, well-paid jobs with well-paid benefits in order to stand this up. So if you build it that way, that’s going to last longer. It’s going to be stronger. It’s going to be built better, and it’s going to build a better America. So that kind of gives you a reason why some of these requests for proposals or notices of funding opportunities have that kind of language in it. And it expresses the kind of tension about going fast but doing it right at the same time. And we’re trying to do both. We think that we can. But again, we haven’t done this for a very long period of time. And we have to get really good at it. And it’s going to take us a minute in order for that to happen. CREBO-REDIKER: Thank you. Aldona Valicenti from Lexington, Kentucky, you have your hand up. Q: Yes, I did. Thank you very much. It’s a real opportunity to express my thanks for having this program in place. But what I did want to do is offer you an opportunity, and the people who are listening, an opportunity in how to approach this. The city of Lexington has already had the good fortune to implement high-speed internet. So in other words, we have several providers. We’re a gig city. But that has not necessarily been the same for the surrounding counties. So we have taken the regional approach. Since we have had already the opportunity to oversee a build, we know quite a bit about building fiber now. And we have organized the six surrounding communities, including our combined city-county government, into an opportunity to look at how we might be able to do that with the surrounding counties. We’ve issued an RFP. And we’ve done that because we felt that we could now educate each other. And that has been a real, real opportunity. We’ve listened to the vendors who can do it, and now are beginning to work with our state government. So I just wanted to offer this as another alternative, because I do believe that, you know, it’s the regional opportunities that are going to drive economic development, very much as you’ve all indicated. And that’s the approach that we’ve taken. And if anybody wants to call me in Lexington, I’ll be happy to talk to them. LANDRIEU: Aldona, thank you so much for that. I think is—used to be the mayor of Lexington and is now the governor’s infrastructure coordinator and running that initiative. I’ve spent some time in Kentucky. I’ve been there a bucketload of times. I’ve been to Louisville. Greg Fischer’s a good friend of mine, who’s the mayor of Louisville. I’ve actually been to Dog Patch. So you live in a beautiful state. But she makes an excellent point that I’d like to—I’d like to, you know, click on a bit. When you have a hub like a Lexington or a Louisville, you’re going to benefit from helping the small towns and communities in the region. And the reason is, is because the more—the more competitions they win, the more federal dollars come into the area, it lifts everybody up. So taking a regional approach to all of these things is really very, very wise, no matter where you live. And hopefully every major city in America, whether they be large cities or medium-sized cities, or small cities that are wealthy, will take the exact same approach. Primarily because the universities that live in those areas actually are serving regional populations anyway. And so that’s what I’m hoping to do. I hope people don’t just wait on the federal government to go do everything because, A, we can’t and, B, we can’t see everything on the ground. So from my perspective, what I’m trying to help do is build what I call horizontal-vertical integration, where the federal government, which is fifty thousand feet up, is really talking very well and all the way down to the ground with people that live in very small communities, and then connecting the state and the cities in between. So that there’s, like, one delivery table in America. Now, when you do that, you also have to think regionally. And if you can create concentric circles that are moving all across the country one thing will start to feed off of the next, because all of these networks that we’re building are all codependent, especially the electric grid. So it’s critically important to kind of, you know, fist-bump what Aldona said, especially about regional cooperation. But you also have to have cooperation between the state government, the federal government, and then the regional directors of all the federal agencies as well. CREBO-REDIKER: So, just before we finish with the last few questions, Senator—State Senator Ann Johnson, you have someone on the line who is volunteering as a semi-retired civil engineer who wants to help you. So you should connect with Robert Israel. Just passing—messenger. So, a question coming from David Rutz. It’s in the—it’s in the chat. We have a project that’s new and wasn’t submitted with the original list of infrastructure projects. Problem with river erosion at one of the state hatcheries. It’s a new project prior to the original submission—it wasn’t submitted. Will there be another—will there be a second bite at the apple? Is there a chance of funding and a second round that he can go to the state infrastructure coordinator and ask for funds for his project? LANDRIEU: Which—well, it’s a little bit unclear from the question about which project he was asking about and what department, but the answer is still the same. This is a—this is a multi-year effort. This is not a one-year thing. So much of this money was put in—that was in the infrastructure bill is a five-year to a seven-year spend. And so when we’re announcing notices of funding opportunities, we’ll send out money for 2022. There’ll be another application for 2023, 2024, and 2025, until the money is spent. So, yes, there are always numerous bites at the apple. And, by the way, there are a lot of different ways to get funded through various different programs. It’s not a one-size-fits-all. I’ll give you an example. In the Department of Transportation and Development, in DOT, they actually pushed three funding opportunities together. So you had one—to go to the question that was asked before—one application for three programs. So that you didn’t have to do it three times. And so we have a number of those happening. So it sounds like what the questioner was asking about was a water project, which is probably coming out of EPA. Now again I want to remind everybody, I’ve said it twice now so I actually intend to be repetitive, half of this money is coming from the federal government to your state. State water revolving funds from the EPA that deal with lead and clean air and clean water and things like abandoned mine lands. Some of it you have to apply directly to the federal department. You have to kind of know—and you can look at that book at build.gov that will tell you exactly what the program is and whether it’s a funnel program to the governor or whether it’s a competitive program that you can apply for directly. CREBO-REDIKER: We have one question—I’ll try and get one more question in—from John Bouvier. He has his hand raised. Go ahead. LANDRIEU: Great name. Q: Thank you. This has been very informative. I appreciate everything you’re talking about. But I think we—I’m hearing, I feel the same way, that we’re kind of stuck when it comes to the money that goes to the states, particularly on the energy side. In Southampton, we have numerous energy initiatives, and we get held up a little bit at the level of the power authority. We have an unusual power authority. It’s a public-private power authority. And they have—when we urge them to apply for these kinds of grants, they’re a little reticent unless it’s cost-effective. That’s a loosely used word. I’m not quite sure what they mean by that. But we’re held up by it and it becomes a checkpoint, a chokepoint for us. And when we make the investments ourselves in particular—we’re able to do that, we do hire consultants and we have good relationships. Unfortunately, we’re still at the mercy of the power authority. And even though it’s just a difficult relationship. And there’s these certain obstruction points when it comes to our willingness to do the right thing, to do CVP, and CCA, and all those things gets held up by either the public service commission or gets held up by our local power authority. And we approached to try to change that by acting regionally and trying to—so we spent an inordinate amount of time petitioning our power authority, and working with them, and trying to get that done. But it just seems very obstructive and contrary to the goals that you have, and the federal government has to move these things quickly. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that. LANDRIEU: First of all, John, I love your last name. It sounds very like you’re from Louisiana. But you said—where are you from? You said Southampton? CREBO-REDIKER: New York. LANDRIEU: Yeah. So— Q: That’s the eastern end of Long Island. LANDRIEU: You raise a point that is a system design issue that is political in nature. And the best I can describe to you is this: Historically the federal government, for many, many, many years, has decided that they were going to push money down through the states. That is, they’ll send the money to the governors, and then the governors have to use whatever process that every state uses to get money to the ground. And every one of them is different. Some legislatures are more powerful than others. Some lieutenant governors have more power than governors, particularly, like, I think, in Texas. But that’s kind of the way it’s always been done. When they were putting this bill together, I wasn’t there when the bill got passed, but there was a serious argument that reflected what your concerns were just now. Which is, how do you get money directly to small governing authorities? And that is why Congress designed 40 percent of this bill to go directly to, for example, Southampton as opposed to the governor of New York. Now, it is also true that your public service commission on some of the clean energy stuff can apply for this stuff as well. And if they’re the ones who get it, and then they distribute it down to the ground, there’s nothing this bill does to alleviate the requirement that local politics take the course that local politics takes, which is to argue, you know, and to hold people accountable for the decisions that they make. If people are really wise about this and we get this right, I think it’ll come into pretty—into some really good clarity that working together, building regional solutions, being aggressive about trying to get these federal funds and get into the ground as quick as possible on fortifying the energy grid, cleaning up the Great Lakes, doing the kind of things that I talked about, is going to be of most benefit to most people in the country. It’s one of the—this bill is designed to get people to find common ground. And, you know, people have to behave well, and they have to make big decisions. And, you know, we can’t force that from fifty thousand feet up. That’s going to have to be, you know, done by local leaders on the ground, like you. So I commend you for thinking about it. As we design future pieces of legislation, hopefully, you know, Washington, as they always should be, will be open to hearing back from the leaders that actually make America work. I happen to think they’re local leaders. I think money can come from Washington and we can have some good ideas, but actually the rubber meets the road where the people on this call live, on the corners, and in the playgrounds and, you know, in places where folks shop. And, you know, local elected officials are the ones that are in the store every day, in the carpool lines, at the ballparks or churches. You know, and you’re getting smacked on the head by your constituents because you’re living in real-time. And there’s no distance between your decisions and when those decisions hit the ground. That’s not necessarily true about Washington. So I appreciate the urgency with which all of you act and the clarity of purpose that pushes all of you forward. And I just really appreciate the work that you’ve done, because I’m a local elected guy. And that’s kind of what I learned and that’s what I’m trying to bring to Washington on behalf of the president. CREBO-REDIKER: So we’ve gone over. You’ve been unbelievably generous with your time. And you said forty-five minutes. We’ve gone over a couple of minutes. So I want to thank you. I’m going to hand it back to Irina to wrap up. You are so welcome to come back here, though, because there are a lot of questions that a lot of people want to have questions asked and answered. So we hope you’ll—this will not be your last time joining our group here at CFR. LANDRIEU: Well, Heidi, I thank you. And if I can’t, there are people who are a lot smarter than me who work on my team who have been great about designing this and implementing. They’re always available to you guys as well. So thank you so much for having me. And again, to all the local elected officials, God bless you. Thank you for all the work that you do. I’ve been there—sixteen years as a legislator, eight as a mayor. I know what it’s like. But it was wonderful. And I’m going to try to bring, you know, some of that ethos to the federal government and get his money out to the ground as fast as possible, on behalf of the president. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. I just want to remind everybody that we will send out a link to this webinar recording and transcript so you can share it with your colleagues and your constituents. Until then, you can follow Coordinator Mitch Landrieu on Twitter at @mitchlandrieu46 and Ms. Heidi Crebo-Rediker at @heidirediker. And as always, please email us with ideas and suggestions for future webinars. You can email [email protected]. And also follow us. Go to cfr.org, foreignaffairs.com, and thinkglobalhealth.org for more expertise. So thank you all for the work you’re doing. Thank you, Coordinator Landrieu, for your service, we appreciate it, and for this time. Have a good day. LANDRIEU: Thank you so much. Good being with you. (END)
  • United States
    Laura D. Tyson: California Capitalism’s Successes and Challenges
    California Capitalism's greatest successes are in education, health and climate.  Its greatest challenges are inequality and affordable housing.
  • Health Policy and Initiatives
    Gun Violence, Public Health, and the Safer Communities Act
    Play
    Vin Gupta, affiliate assistant professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington, and Jonas Oransky, legal director at Everytown for Gun Safety, discuss gun-related deaths as a public health problem, approaches to preventing firearm-related deaths in the United States and abroad, and the recently passed bipartisan Safer Communities Act and specific provisions concerning states and localities.  TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. We’re delighted to have participants from forty-seven states and territories with us today for this conversation, which is on the record. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the national program and outreach here at CFR. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. And, as always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. So we are pleased to have with us today Vin Gupta and Jonas Oransky to talk about “Gun Violence, Public Health, and the Safer Communities Act.” I shared their bios with you, but I will give you a few highlights. Dr. Vin Gupta is currently an affiliate assistant professor of health metric sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. And he is a chief medical officer of Amazon.com’s global COVID-19 response. He is a Harvard-trained lung specialist, with experience in the field of global public health, and has worked with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Harvard Global Health Institute, and the World Health Organization. And Dr. Gupta is also a deployable critical care physician for the U.S. Air Force Medical Corps Reserves. Jonas Oransky is a legal director at Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country. He spent nearly a decade there working to develop and implement policies that curb gun violence in the United States and is an expert on the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed into law in June of this year. Mr. Oransky previously worked in the New York City mayor’s office and moved to Everytown in the days following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. So thank you both for being with us. Dr. Gupta, I thought we would start with you to give us an overview of gun policies around the world, how other countries have responded to gun-related deaths and mass shootings, and why this should be approached as a public health problem. GUPTA: Irina, as always, thank you for the privilege of being here with the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s great to be here with my co-panelist, Jonas, and with all of you. I recognize everybody joining in, has a really busy schedule. And thank you for all that you do for your communities. Gun violence is a public health emergency. This is—this is an issue that I know has been politicized, that is obviously controversial. And so I want to acknowledge that up front. We all have our own personal beliefs on gun ownership and what that means. And there’s a lot of history around this issue, irrespective of some recent tragedies. But let me try to frame this with some facts here that I think are incontrovertible. And I say this as an ICU physician that has seen what gun violence does to the human body, both as a civilian in civilian hospitals in the U.S. and also as a deployable doc that has seen what assault weapons do to the human body, to our deployed soldiers. I have actually cared for wounded warriors, and brought them back from downrange in places like Afghanistan in C-17s. And that’s what I do as a critical care or transport physician for the Air Force and try to save their life and transport them back home. So I come at this from the lens of looking at the data as an epidemiologist, but, you know, very—from an emotional lens and from a clinical lens as somebody that’s actually cared for individuals harmed by these weapons. And so what does the data say? You know, more than anything, I think—certainly over the last few years—we’ve seen a trend here in the United States that is worrisome when it comes to the impact of firearms on our children. And so firearms deaths now, into 2022, is the leading cause of death of children here in the United States, those less than eighteen years of age, across the United States. The first year that that’s actually been true since we’ve been tracking this data, since 1990. And so that’s a pretty seminal milestone here, and I think pretty alarming when you think about what our peer economies—those with—our peer nations with advanced economies. You know, when you look at what their data shows, the impact that firearms are having on childhood deaths in places like Japan and in Germany, it’s pretty alarming. Because in places like Japan and Germany, it doesn’t even—it doesn’t even rank in the top ten. In Japan, it’s the fifteenth-leading cause of death amongst children less than eighteen years of age. And the reason—there’s lots of reasons why. But I think the most explanatory reason is it’s hard to get—have access to firearms in places like Japan. In Japan, you need to go through three background checks, regardless of your age. And you have to also have a motivational interview with police. You actually have to explain to them why it is that you want to own a firearm. And so those stringent, upfront policies limiting who actually has access, making sure we have a thorough vetting of who’s seeking out firearms in places like Japan, something similar in Germany to a certain degree, is the reason why many of us believe that firearm deaths specifically amongst children are rare. And we’re talking about the fifteenth leading cause of death amongst children in Japan, the number-one leading cause of death—firearms, that is—amongst children here in the United States. That’s a sobering reality now. Usually, in most advanced economies especially, but pretty much in any country across the world, the leading cause of death of children—really, in most countries worldwide—is motor vehicle accidents. In some places, it’s cancer. In the United States, it’s firearm deaths. So I think we really have to wrestle with that as a country here. And when I say that this is a public health problem, I lead with that as reason number one, because that is avoidable. That is an avoidable tragedy. But I think, you know, some much has—so much of the focus has, appropriately, been on children, and the havoc that firearms have wreaked on them, that sometimes we lose sight of some of the broader trendlines that we’re seeing amongst, say, adult men, ages fifteen to forty-nine years of age. Suicide is the leading cause of death amongst men in that age group in many advanced economies. Not just here in the United States, in many. In the United States, what we saw here is that youth suicides have spiked by over 25 percent for every ten-percentage-point increase in gun ownership. That specifically is a finding here in the United States. That’s amongst children eighteen years of age and younger. But in the U.S., suicide is the leading cause of death amongst older men—fifteen to forty-nine years of age. And one of the clear reasons why, again, is easy access to firearms. Many studies have shown this—so I’m sure we’ll make sure that we share some of the relevant data for those that would like it—have shown a clear link between easy access to firearms and the reason why suicide is so common here, specifically amongst that demographic here in the U.S., but also in many of our advanced economies across—many of our peer economies across the world. And so there are many examples here in the data showing that the easier it is to access firearms, especially in the U.S., the trend lines here in terms of downstream impacts—whether it’s suicide in older individuals or firearm deaths in younger individuals—the data is pretty clear. I also did want to just emphasize here, as—you know, I often get questions about what is the impact. You know, as we have had some of these really wrenching debates on who should and should not have access to, say, an assault-type weapon—an AR-15-type weapon, especially after—in the aftermath of what happened in Texas recently. Is this the type of weapon that we should be—you know, anyone should potentially have access to, especially in states that don’t have background checks, that don’t have licensing requirements for gun dealers, places, frankly, where it’s easier to get your hands on a weapon like this. Is this something that should—is this a weapon that should be constrained in terms of access? Should we go back to the 1990s, when we had a ban on broad public access to these types of weapons? And, you know, I recognize here that, and especially in my military life, there are a lot of my fellow servicemembers who look at these types of weapons and say, you know, they are law-abiding citizens. That they feel that the right to have access, to utilize these weapons—especially since they’re law-abiding—should not be infringed upon. That they use it for recreational purposes alone, like hunting, and that they don’t want to see that in any way impacted. But then when you really look at it from a clinical lens, what is the impact of a bullet that’s emitted from an assault-type weapon, from an AR-15-type weapon versus from a handgun? And what is the impact that it has on the human body? It’s like a bomb—a mini-bomb is going off once that bullet has direct impact to the soft tissue, to your skin. And then once it pierces the skin, within your body the impact that it has—bullets from an assault-type weapon, an AR-15-type weapon—it’s like a bomb is going off in your body. Unlike, say, a bullet from a handgun, where pretty much there’s localized damage. There’s damage, there’s bleeding, there’s significant sort of potentially destruction of bone and major blood vessels from a bullet from a handgun, no doubt. But it’s localized to the area in which it enters and exists. Unlike a bullet from an AR-15-type weapon, where on impact you’re having a mini-explosion. So you’re not just having localized soft tissue damage. You’re destroying the tissue around it. That’s causing inflammation. It’s causing actually a systemic body response, where blood pressure starts to decrease, people start to lose a lot more blood than just the area in which there’s that direct injury. Which is why you’re seeing in many cases, if somebody has a bullet injury from that type of weapon their time—the time for medical intervention in which somebody’s life could be saved—we’re talking about a narrow window here. Maybe five minutes, maybe ten minutes, where you need to place a tourniquet, you need to get them to surgical intervention as quickly as possible. Versus a handgun and an injury from a handgun, where you have a little bit more time, potentially, to save that person’s life. That’s the key difference here. So when we think about the public health data, the statistics I mentioned just at the top—firearms being a leading cause of death amongst children less than eighteen years of age here in the United States, a trend that’s only getting worse and, frankly, deviating from global trends that we’re seeing amongst many of our allied countries like Germany and Japan—those public health figures should be alarming in and of itself. But then when you look at the impact that especially firearms like AR-15-type weapons have on the human body, it’s pretty extraordinary. And I’ve seen it with my own eyes here. There is no place, in my opinion, for these weapons of war in the general public. And that—you know, to go back to some statistics here and some of the evidence we saw from the mid-1990s when you limit access to these types of weapons mass shootings that are—in which an AR-15-type weapon are used—or, in which they’re used, those almost go down to essentially zero. We see mass shootings as a result of these assault-type weapons become very rare, almost go down to zero in places like New Zealand and the United Kingdom, once you place restrictions on who can access them. And in my belief, given what I’ve seen clinically, in terms of what the bullets do from these types of weapons to the human body, I don’t believe they have any place in society for general public access. They should be something that is limited to those in uniform, whether it’s police or military. And that’s coming from a clinical standpoint. However, I’m going to stop right there. I’m going to stop right there. I’m going to pause and send it back to Jonas. But I did just want to start off with some public health and clinical grounding. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, Vin. And, Jonas, let’s go to you to talk about the new Safer Communities Act, and what was passed, and what officials and constituents can expect to see at the subnational level as a result of these new policies. ORANSKY: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me, Irina. Thanks to Vin. And thanks to this audience for tuning in. I’ve been working in the gun safety movement now for nearly a decade. I’ve seen many major successes, and also our fair share of disappointments at the local, state, and federal level. What I can say about this new piece of federal law is it’s a real landmark. It is very important for political momentum, certainly. And it’s given us real policy change and a lot of new funding to celebrate. While it is not everything we want—Congress certainly needs to do more—we’re confident that this new law is going to have a major impact. And in this field, a major impact means lives are saved. So now there’s a ton of work to be done to make the most of this law, much of which falls to folks like you—capable and caring officials at the state and local level. I’m going to give an overview now of what some of that state and local action should look like to implement the law well and will be happy to answer any questions. I’ll share my screen here. Bear with me. Great. Can we have thumbs up, that folks can see that? Great, thanks. Great. I’ll just also put in a plug. We have a large law and policy team at Everytown. Really unmatched experience in these issues. We’re ready to help on the nuts-and-bolts level, including to help figure out how to prioritize among these really many pieces of policy work for a given state or locality. So onto my first slide here. When it comes to federal action, the gun safety movement has had its best year, really, in a generation. So you see on the page here is a short list of the accomplishments to date, including, as you can see, regulatory success on the issue of ghost guns, along with confirmation of the first ATF direction since President Obama was in office. The last, and really most impressive, item on here is the passage of the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which is the most impactful federal legislation on gun safety in twenty-five years. It is the first major step forward in federal legislation since the movement’s efforts really intensified in the wake of Sandy Hook, nearly now ten years ago. Next slide here. You can see that the SCA has several sections and several policy areas. It aims to reduce gun violence in all of its pernicious forms, including not only mass shootings but also the suicides that make up nearly two out of every three U.S. gun deaths, along with domestic violence homicides, as well as the gun violence that’s concentrated in our city and falls most heavily on Black and brown Americans in U.S. cities. In the wake of the bill passing, Everytown made a primer for state and local actors that’s really focused on what’s next. I think we plan to send it to this group after this session is complete. Recommend folks look at that document in detail. I’ll do my best in my remaining opening minutes here to name some of the important highlights, and go through these issues one by one. I hope you will forgive the laundry list. There’s a lot to cover here. Happy to hone in on any individual policy afterwards. So, first, up here, taking the issues one by one, the law funds $750 million, as you can see here, for crisis intervention, including so-called red flag petitions, which empower law enforcement and family members to ask a court to temporarily restrict gun access for a person in crisis, a person who poses a danger to themselves or others with a firearm. These have been a major focus of the movement in Everytown now for several years. These programs are proven to have especially strong impacts on reducing suicide. In the nineteen states with these laws in place, officials should be applying for this money as soon as possible. We expect the solicitation from the government to be released any day now, really shortly. Folks should be using that money to set up really statewide efforts to design best practices and technical assistance for identifying these cases, along with tools really to help people in crisis into the resources that they need—behavioral health resources, mental health resources, and the like. These laws are all new, and they all need really tender, loving care from state and local actors to increase the uptake. We are very confident this new money is going to increase use of this lifesaving tool pretty considerably. We’re hoping to see more full-time staff at the local and state level dedicated to looking for warning signs and taking out these petitions. That’s a model that’s been successful in several localities in these states. We’re hoping that states that have resisted passing red flag laws in the past will take this opportunity—you know, really new, bipartisan support for these—for these petition processes—to go ahead and pass these laws. And you’ll see here a link, it says gunlawrankings.org. That’s an Everytown website. We catalog fifty top policies for all fifty states and, among other things, show a correlation between strong policy and lower rates of gun violence. You can actually consult that site to understand several of the policies on here. Next, the new law creates an additional background check identification process for gun buyers under twenty-one years old, with federal background check operators reaching out to state and local officials to look for records that are not already in the federal system. That’s an extra effort to ensure there are no illegal sales of young people, who we know can pose a special danger with a firearm. So state and local officials can help now to implement the law by building out in their states a centralized process to respond to those inquiries from federal operators. It's especially important because the law does not give much additional time to track down those records. The clock is effectively always ticking once someone tries to buy a gun, to find those disqualifying records. Separately, states should take this opportunity, if they haven’t yet, to update their laws, raising the age for all gun purchases to twenty-one years old, where we believe it should be. Several states have done that, including Florida, which did that after the Parkland shooting in 2018. Next up—again, please forgive the laundry list; there’s a lot to cover—community violence intervention programs. So the bill funds $250 million for these programs, which will flow chiefly through local governments and also directly through organizations that specialize in group-based intervention, in violence interruption, in hospital-based services—all that focused on breaking the cycle of violence in the hardest-hit communities. These programs are really a crucial part of the gun violence prevention puzzle and a growing piece of the movement. This is money that will help to scale up their work. So state actors can also help. They can add in more money of their own, which several states have done. They can also help play a role as technical assistance providers, as conveners, as advocates. Some states have set up stand-alone offices of violence intervention to help fund and coordinate this type of work. Onto slide six, domestic violence. The bill partially closes the infamous loophole that has often been called the boyfriend loophole. So it finally bars gun possession by dating partners who are convicted of abuse, rather than allowing those abuses to hold onto their guns, as the law had done for really a generation. This is a major policy breakthrough. It will certainly disarm abusers and save lives. The main value that in-state officials can provide here is twofold. One is looking at their state criminal codes and condition of their own court records, clearly identifying which people are newly prohibited from gun possession under the law, now that it’s been updated in the right direction. The second piece is all about relinquishing illegal guns. Folks have probably heard a lot about this policy in the past. It’s been a major priority of the gun safety movement. With federal momentum, this is the moment to make those gun laws really work, to make gun removal programs thorough and consistent. This can be really in-depth programming with courts and law enforcement. Folks can also consult, I’ll put it on the screen again here, gunlawrankings.org, to see which states have more statutory changes that they can still make. One more slide to run through here. I’m watching my clock. Next is the piece that expands which gun sellers will run background checks on their buyers. So the federal bill adds new language to the law on where that threshold is for being, what’s called in the law, engaged in the business of dealing firearms. We hope this is going to narrow that loophole where illegal gun buyers, guy buyers who are not allowed to buy guns, try to skip the background check that’s supposed to be required under the law. I’ll only say for now, for the impact at the state and local level, that very interested state officials can help identify those sellers that have failed to get dealer licenses, and can also, you know, do their own work—states can do their own work to pass or improve their own licensing laws, those are pretty common as well in some of the bluer states, to increase industry oversight with a state regulatory process. Separately, and it’s not even on this page but there’s so much in the bill, there’s new $200 million in grant funding for states to use their own—for their own criminal mental health records. There’s been a lot of money used—a lot of federal money used over the years to do this. This is a new $200 million to ensure that records are well-marked, consistently entered into federal databases that are used for background checks. I’ll spend just one moment on two final policies here. Trafficking—here we have the first law ever that makes it a crime to engage in straw purchasing or interstate gun trafficking. So state and local officials can now make themselves available to the feds to help investigate trafficking in their communities. They can also take a bigger and bolder step, following the lead of innovators, like the city of Baltimore, that have built their own data intelligence tools to look at illegal guns on their own streets to identify and map where those guns are coming from in their own communities. And finally, the law funds $300 million for preventing violence in schools with evidence-based strategies such as educating parents on secure storage, standing up threat assessment teams that intervene when students are at risk, along with more nuts-and-bolts policies, school security upgrades, and emergency planning. Local leaders can play a leadership role here as well, disseminating information on secure firearms storage through the schools, as cities like Los Angeles have done. Finally, all states that don’t have strong secure storage requirements should cast those into law as soon as possible. OK. I appreciate I covered a lot in a short time there. Hopefully, there’ll be some follow-up questions for folks, and hopefully, folks see that the new law touches on a lot of issue areas, many opportunities here it creates for investment of time by state and local actors. As I concluded here, I just want to shout out the amazing movement that helped build toward this federal legislation over years, that has helped pass so much great legislation at the state and local level. We have really an incredible collection of organizations and community leaders across the country. I’ve been inspired by the many state and local officials, including many of you, who have stuck their neck out for these issues. So I’m really grateful for you all. And now I’ll just kick it back to Irina. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you both very much. And there have been already a couple of questions written. Can we get a copy of this webinar and the slides? And, yes, we will be sending out a link to the webinar, the transcript, the Everytown report, as well as Jonas’ presentation so you can refer to it after the fact. So now let’s go to questions. We hope that you will write in the Q&A box your questions. When you do so, please identify yourself so that I—and I will do my best to also look you up if you don’t do that. So I’m going to first go to Rex Scott, who is a country—sorry—county supervisor in Arizona, which has a statute in place, ARS 13-3108, that prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting laws or regulations dealing with guns that are stricter than state laws. Our board passed a resolution calling on the state to repeal the law and directing our county attorney to present us with options for challenging the constitutionality or legality of the statute. Could Everytown help us with this challenge? ORANSKY: Great. Thanks for the question, Rex. Yes, this type of law, which may be shocking to some folks, is actually in place in some states in the country. I think the count is north of forty states that have laws that attempt, at least, to block localities from doing their own good gun safety work. They do not—sometimes they do not stand as a complete bar. Sometimes they’re poorly written. We have had conversations about whether they are constitutional in the past, but these types of preemption laws, from our perspective, are really pernicious because they block local leaders from doing their own work. I know that Arizona has one in place, and I remember there were a few years in a row there where the Arizona legislation kept strengthening the state’s firearm preemption law. They just kept adding to it and trying to do more work to block localities. It was depressing because it was—particularly depressing because it was in the wake of the Tucson shooting where Gabby Giffords was shot. So what I can say, Rex, is we are absolutely opposed to that type of law. And if—you should certainly feel free to reach out. We have folks on the ground in Arizona and a team that lobbies in Arizona and would be happy to talk about it. FASKIANOS: Great. Our next question from Willie Rachford, who is the community relations executive director in Charlotte, North Carolina. When you consider our collective reaction to gun violence and the impact on young people, is it that we don’t get it or we just do not care? And what hunter needs a gun that will blow the head off the animal they are hunting? So I think maybe you both could answer that one. ORANSKY: Yeah, I mean, I’m happy to jump in. I think that people—honestly, I think that people do care. If you—if you poll the public on major gun violence prevention issues, you typically find extremely high support for the main issues that my organization works on. If you poll on universal background checks, for example, you get numbers—you know, 90 percent of the public thinks that they’re a good idea. We’ve always believed that the public passion is there for the issues. Obviously, we have, you know, shocking gun violence, mass shootings that make the news and shock the nation’s conscience. And the total number of people killed in gun violence is truly staggering. You know, the work of advocates like myself—and we have, you know, 6 million folks who are supporters of the org—is really to convince legislators to care as much as the people do, and convince legislators that might be scared of gun lobby pushback that they shouldn’t be. That they’re covered, that they’re not going to get voted out of office for taking action. And we’re really hopeful, frankly, that the federal law is a huge momentum shifter, showing that you can get, you know, nearly seventy votes for common-sense gun reform at the federal level. FASKIANOS: Great. Vin. GUPTA: Yeah. I’ll just 100 percent agree with Jonas. And I’m grateful for Everytown’s work and commitment, and, Jonas, your commitment to this day over day. You know, I’ll just add that it often seems like solutions that get proposed from elected officials who are resistant to restrictions on access, particularly to assault-type weapons—AR-15s or AR-15-like weapons—want to rely on solutions that, you know, frankly are not scalable, like increasing the provision of mental health services to more places in the United States, to more children that may need it, to more adults that may need it. That is not a short-term solution, because we have—and this is for medicine across the board, not just mental health providers—but we don’t have enough providers. There is a shortfall of at least 7,000 mental health professionals right now as we speak. Sixty to 80 percent of the U.S. population doesn’t have durable access to a mental health provider. Over 45 percent of mental health conditions right now are not getting treated. And that’s amongst those are just diagnosed. There’s a lot of undiagnosed mental health burden across the country. We don’t have the services to be able to really intervene on that. Even with the new resources in this—in this new legislation, if you don’t have trained professionals to render services, to prescribe therapy, to do the monitoring, you can’t—there isn’t a silver bullet here to say, let’s improve the nation’s collective mental health. That is something that’s easier—that’s far easier said than done, and yet that’s often what’s talked about in the absence of meaningful action on limiting access to firearms, particularly AR-15-like weapons. And so that’s also part of the problem here. That often the policy debate on those most resistant to meaningful change lean in on these tools or prescribe these solutions for which there actually isn’t a scalable solution. FASKIANOS: And just to follow on that, how has the—that gap widened with the COVID-19 pandemic? The shortfall  mental health professionals? GUPTA: It’s only worsened. So, Irina, the expectation here is that we were going to lose about 30 percent of all health care providers, including in that mental health providers, by end of—by the end of the decade, by 2030. That there’s going to be natural attrition, people are going to retire. That number has now increased to about 45 percent. We expect—there has been almost a 50 percent increase in the proportion of health care providers—mental health and others—that are going to leave the workforce because of burnout, because they’re just done with it, exacerbated by the pandemic because of the ways in which the pandemic has really—had made the lives of providers really difficult. And so when you think about that supply-demand imbalance getting worse, and mental health—the prevalence of mental health disorders likely only increasing as a result of the pandemic, then this is a pretty terrible asymmetry here. And, you know, tele-mental health, all this revolution in virtual care, is only going to be able to close that gap so much. And so we—this is not—sure, I am all for supporting innovative solutions and increasing access to mental health. I think tele-mental health, making sure that we have durable access to telehealth more broadly across all fifty states, is vital. There’s a lot of policy changes that we can do to improve access to telehealth services, mental health, and otherwise. Having said that, that is only a partial solution. If we do not have enough human resources to provide these types of services, it doesn’t matter what we do on the policy side. And we’re lacking the human capacity, the human capability here. We don’t have enough workers in the pipeline, mental health providers, to replace those that are going to leave. So this is the true crisis here. And as we talk about gun violence and solutions that will achieve bipartisan support, we have to keep these realities in mind here. It’ll be favorable and easy to talk about addressing mental health issues as a solution we can all agree to. And yet, when you really double-click here, we have to incentivize people to go into and become mental health providers. We have to make sure that we can retain them. And that’s a broader discussion, of course. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So the next question comes from Misty Perez, who’s a councilmember of Port Hueneme, California—excuse my pronunciation. It got two up-votes. Now, how do we get access to the funding mentioned in this law? Who should we contact? I think that one is for you, Jonas. ORANSKY: That’s a great question. And I think it’s a good problem that, as you look through even the slide show, we’re talking about several different types of funding to put to several different types of purposes. So there isn’t one single answer. If there’s one single answer probably, Misty, it’s feel free to get in contact with Everytown and we can talk about any of these individual sources of funding and how to start accessing them. But for—you know, I can just, you know, take a couple of them one by one. For extreme risk protection orders, for that crisis intervention funding, we really need state leadership to do that work first, to pull that money down. I think that solicitation will be coming out imminently. We certainly expect—I think we hope and expect—all my team—extreme risk protection order states, all the red flag states, will be using that money. For city leaders, I think it probably is important to be talking to your governors’ offices, to be talking to your AG’s offices, and saying we want access to some of this money. I think that we will be—certainly be saying to governors and to state leaders who are—who are most likely to be dispersing it, that they should be looking for local leaders who want to lead red flags. That could be setting up your own staff to focus on it as, you know, great leadership in places like King County, Washington. They have dedicated teams that focus on red flag petitions full-time. I think that probably it will be smart to talk to the state folks about how to access some of that money. Whereas, for community violence intervention funding—for violence interrupters, or street outreach, or hospital-based programs—that money actually flows directly to locals and to community-based organizations directly. So that’s money that can be sought by locals, like yourself, directly from the federal government. I won’t run through all the different types of funding, but I’m very happy to talk about any one in particular. And if you wanted to get in touch with the California folks, or with me and I can connect you to our California folks, I’m happy to—happy to help with the individual pots of money, talking about how to access them. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We will confer with you, Jonas, and you can give us a contact list of, you know, what we can send out to the group. So, Diane Goldring, chief of staff for Illinois State Representative Gabel: Is there any momentum whatsoever behind repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? ORANSKY: There is momentum. I don’t expect that it will happen in this—in this Congress. But we’re pressing hard to try to do that. And there was nearly a House vote on repealing what we call PLCAA last week. For folks that don’t know, this is a really ugly piece of federal law that was passed in 2005. It creates a really unique type of immunity for the gun industry, where it becomes extraordinarily difficult to bring them to court for gun violence survivors, to hold them accountable for, you know, really extreme, you know, negligent behavior that, unfortunately, is a matter of course in the gun industry, that ended up landing guns into our community, onto the black market, in the hands of children. PLCAA has made it very difficult to hold the industry to account. And it was passed in 2005 after there had been a rash of lawsuits that were actually proving effective to create some change in the gun industry. One thing I will say, we have states that are leading on PLCAA now. New York was the first to pass this type of law last year. And we now have had new action in places like California and Delaware to pass similar laws that effectively are broadening the escape hatches in PLCAA and making it easier in those states to try to work through the federal PLCAA bill and do some of that accountability work in court. So we’re seeing really hopeful strategies in state legislatures to try to—to try to work around or through PLCAA. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to group two questions, the first from the chief of police, Patrick Finlon, Cary Village, Illinois, and Carey Jansen of Crawford County, Michigan, commissioner District Four. So for the chief of police: In Dr. Gupta’s introductory comments, it sounds like the issue is the destructive effective of supersonic rounds. Is the restriction of the ammunition a control method that is being sought? And then for—from Carey Jansen—which I just lost in this—here we go. Dr. Gupta, interested to hear your perspective on the sociological/psychological reasons why Americans love guns. What is it ultimately tied to? GUPTA: Well, I appreciate both those questions. I should say that I am a—I’m a pulmonologist, so I will do my best to try to weigh on that second question. I will say for question one, capacity limitations—if that’s sort of—if I’m understanding the question correctly—so how many rounds can you fire, you know, from, say, an assault-type weapon, and AR-15-type weapon? You know, or capacity limitations, say, you know, sort of small magazines. They only have five to ten rounds of ammunition versus sort of large-scale magazines that can—(audio break)— FASKIANOS: Something just popped. GUPTA: You guys are— FASKIANOS: There we go. You’re back. GUPTA: You can hear me? OK. So while I—while I do think that capacity limitations of how many rounds you can have, you know, in one—in one magazine will hopefully be able to mitigate the loss of life in any particular mass shooting, it’s not going to—you know, one bullet from one of those—one of those AR-15-type weapons can kill somebody. So while capacity restrictions will hopefully mitigate the loss of life—and in Washington State, for example, you can only carry small-capacity magazines that have five to ten rounds, versus in some states, you know, that magazine can carry up to thirty rounds. While I think that’s a partial solution to this issue, really one bullet from any of these types of weapons can still kill easily one individual. So you’re talking about sort of the magnitude of loss of life there if we were to limit the size of magazines, which some states have done. So, again, partial solution. To the second question—at least from what I’ve seen in the spheres of life in which, you know, I directly experience—I do feel that there is a lot of the messaging and marketing of these weapons—AR-15-type weapons—speaks to a machismo that it’s really been effective in sort of channeling or appealing to that sentiment—that machismo sentiment, that sort of feeling like there’s masculinity that you would be able to recuperate or to channel if you were to own one of these weapons. I think it’s been very effective at drawing people in that may otherwise not have been tempted to even think about utilizing or seeking out these weapons. So I do think that thread has been quite strong and that marketing tactic very effective. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go to Representative Keturah Herron from Louisville, Kentucky. There are a lot of different policy solutions to assist in preventing gun violence. Do you recommend more conservative states, like Kentucky, to start small, like establishing an office of gun violence prevention, before going to gun restrictions? If not, what recommendations do you have for more conservative states? ORANSKY: Yeah, it’s a great challenge for conservative leaders—for leaders in conservative states that care about these issues. We’ve had a lot of folks in state legislatures, you know, banging their head against the wall because they, you know, have been unable to do some of the most basic gun safety work in those states. For a couple of years. we were seeing a lot of progress on domestic violence issues in the more conservative states. And some of the reddest states in the country passed pretty strong and impressive domestic violence laws over several years. I think we hope to do more of that work going forward. Another major priority in those places has been community violence intervention funding, which in some conservative states has been able to free up some state money to do that work in cities. And now with a lot of new money flowing federally to do that work, I think localities like yours could perhaps focus on pulling down some of that money and building that work—the street outreach work, the hospital-based interventions, the group-based interventions, working with credible messengers. That could be a really important priority and, you know, there isn’t a state preemption bar on doing that type of work, usually. And, like I said, the federal money is going to flow a lot to locals directly to do that work. So not—that’s not a comprehensive list, but there are some places to start. And if you want to talk more about opportunities for Louisville, we’d be certainly happy to connect and think it through. FASKIANOS: So I’m going to take the next question from Kristen Edgreen Kaufman, deputy commissioner at the New York City Mayor’s Office of International Affairs. What are your thoughts on the role of data sharing amongst municipal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies on confiscated guns used in violent crimes? How can we break down the silos of data at the local and federal level to allow information to be shared among relevant parties to better address gun violence? ORANSKY: Yeah. It’s a really important question and a really important gap in our knowledge. And when it comes to planning smart policy solutions, the fact that we don’t know—we can’t map in detail what trafficking networks look like, how guns are moving from the legal market to the illegal market, and ending up in crime, makes it very difficult to find the best-fit solutions. So we’re extremely excited to have the first confirmed ATF director in several years. He just took his office a couple weeks ago. And we’re very hopeful and have already been impressing the ATF to focus on trafficking networks. They already have had some projects that are, you know, effectively regional centers to try to pool this type of information. And we’re hopeful that the feds will redouble efforts to try to bring some sunshine to, you know, what trafficking networks look like, how crime guns are coming into being, how they’re ending up on our streets. There do exist, and folks may know this, some restrictions in the federal law that the gun lobby helped put in place now almost fifteen years ago, that block ATF from doing certain publication of data on firearm traces, which are—which are awful, and help—and have helped to build, you know, this kind of, like, opaque—this veil over trafficking. And we’re hoping—have been lobbying to try to remove those restrictions. We’ve also seen work at the local and state level to try to get data directly from the feds and build the type of tool—I mentioned the city of Baltimore earlier built a tool, Everytown helped work on it, to try to do some of that mapping work on their own. There have been others like the Crime Lab at the University of Chicago, that have done some of that work, that really should be ATF’s work. but it’s been hard for them to do. So we think that the role of local and state actors to try to effectively pool that information and build their own—build their own maps and networks is critical. We would be happy to talk about it more detail. Hard to describe too much in a few minutes here. But would be happy to talk about it in detail. FASKIANOS: There’s a question from Kathleen Willis, who’s a representative in the House for the State of Illinois. Illinois has many gun laws in place, including red flag laws and background checks. But we get frustrated that people can cross state lines and have easy access to guns. Any chance of seeing a federal law that prohibits out-of-state purchasers? ORANSKY: Yeah. Folks may know because it’s been so—it’s been such a frequent refrain in the press now for years. A city like Chicago, and just brought up Baltimore earlier, may be two of the cities that are really most plagued by the weak gun laws of their neighbors. The Illinois laws are pretty strong, Chicago’s gun laws are pretty strong. But it is really not difficult to get into Indiana and try to effectively sneak around the strong laws of Illinois. Unfortunately, a lot of folks from Chicago go across state lines and buy guns illegally. They do it in private sales where gun—where background checks are not required. And that’s extremely difficult to crack down on. It’s one of the reasons why our belief that crime has remained so high in Chicago—gun crime has remained so much. There also is very, very poor supervision of the gun shops in Indiana, where there are a lot of, you know, unscrupulous or negligent gun dealers, poorly supervised by ATF, that are helping to create that problem across state lines in Illinois. You are actually—to your specific question, you are not currently allowed to travel across state lines and buy handguns. You can go across state lines and buy long guns, rifles, and shotguns. But federal law does not typically allow you to do that for handguns. Even if it did, you would have to show a FOID card, you know, the Illinois ID card. So if folks are able to do that with handguns, they are effectively also violating federal law at this point. So obviously has been a very pernicious problem for Chicago, in particular. And one we have tried to make quite a lot of hay of federally when we’ve talked, among other things, about the importance of comprehensive background check requirements for the country. So we are trying to make Chicago and Illinois a major focus of our work recently and in the time to come. Illinois has been very, very focused on gun safety issues. So we hope—I don’t want to leave you with pessimism. We hope to see some real change in Illinois over the coming years—months and years. FASKIANOS: Great. Next question from Fonda Brewer, who is a trustee at the Delta Charter Township in Michigan.  Do you have any sample gun violence is a public health issue resolutions that can be shared with us? And just as sort of for even how can public health institutions get involved to help control gun violence? GUPTA: Absolutely. I’ll take the second part of that question. I’m curious, Jonas, if you can weigh in on the first in terms of resolutions maybe framing gun violence as a public health issue. I don’t know of anything formal. You know, organizations like—I’ll plug the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. Go to healthdata.org. And, you know, I’ll make sure that we share these resources with CFR, and that they’re cascaded down to all of you. But there’s—there you’ll find statistics on the global burden of death and disability from firearms and can compare it across countries. And I think that tells a story that’s really important to be able to share and message on to all of your constituents, whether you’re talking about what’s happening in your jurisdiction or across the country. And so that’s particularly top of mind. I will say that in terms of—and this goes back to the data question that was asked earlier, and I know Jonas was referencing this, was talking about better data would help us understand the flow of guns and, you know, help us better characterize gun trafficking and the volume of it. But I feel like telling—using data, having better data to demonstrate the impact of, say, red flag laws also is very compelling. And so when you take the cases of Indiana and Connecticut, they implemented red flag laws recently. And the rates of suicide decreased by 7 and 14 percent, respectively. And so being able to—and, of course, it may not just be in isolation, sort of the implementation of red flag laws, but that was a key driver of those decreases in suicide rates. And so when you’re seeing evidence of impact framed in that type of compelling data, that’s really helpful as well. So we do need more—we need to be messaging more on the ways in which all these policies that Jonas is talking about, that we know already exist, can compel states that—the thirty-one states that have not implemented red flag laws to do so. ORANSKY: Yeah, just want to second what Vin said. It’s critical that we increase and professionalize the data infrastructure here. Some of that work can be done by a federal government. Finally, we have removed restrictions on CDC doing some of this critical work to investigate the causes and the techniques to prevent gun violence. A couple of states have moved in this area in the last couple years. There now is a New Jersey Firearm Research Center at Rutgers and California just funded a similar center that will likely be at UC Davis. Very eager to increase the number of public health institutions that are dedicating some of their research time and dollars and manpower to this work. We’ve actually seen quite a lot of growth, but very eager to get others involved. Particularly looking for folks in communities to study the impact of, you know, state and local laws locally. There was a second question about resolutions. We’ve worked quite a bit with localities on resolutions, including to ask their state or federal counterparts to do the work they need to be doing, or otherwise. So would certainly be happy to help. I don’t think we have a model like the one you asked for, but would certainly be happy to help if you’re interested. FASKIANOS: There’s so many questions. All right. So I’m going to group a few. From Rudy England, who is legal counsel for the Texas State Senator Nathan Johnson: Is there language in the act regarding school resource officers? A few others asked that as well. And then from Representative Scott Holcomb, who’s in the Georgia House of Representatives: I’m curious as to which measures seem to have the biggest public safety impact, recognizing that studies are likely ecological and data can be difficult to come by. How would you rank order the policies that would likely provide the most benefit? ORANSKY: Yeah, those are both really good questions. On the first question on the school safety money, I don’t believe there is any new language on SROs. But I do suspect that some of the money, particularly I suspect—and I’m not sure—I think some of the money flows through the existing COPS Program, which I believe can be used to SROs. I suspect—and I would have to confirm it—but I suspect that it is possible to use that money for SROs. I don’t know exactly why the question was asked, but I would say to this group that Everytown does not support having armed SROs in schools that are doing—you know, in the school, or officers that are doing disciplinary work at all. Would be happy to elaborate on our position, if folks are interested. But it has been controversial, but it has been a major subject of conversation because I think there’s some real evidence that SROs, if used poorly, can really contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline and can have a pretty deleterious effect on kids, particularly children of color. The other question—sorry, trying to race through the issues. The other question was about the relative impact of these policies. It’s a really important question. It’s why we need better data surveillance. It’s why we need to build bigger, better research evidence. And I don’t have a rank order here. I would actually direct folks to the gun law rankings website, where we have tried to do some effort at grading or tiering the impact of the different policies. Really aimed at state legislating but talking about foundational policies that affect if they have a higher score when you’re talking about individual states’ policy, infrastructure, and other policies that are important but, potentially, less impactful. We focused in particular on domestic violence, on secure storage, on community violence intervention funding, on background checks, and on stopping the gun lobby’s effort to do away with concealed carry permits, as kind of top priorities that we think will have the most impact. FASKIANOS: Yeah, just to clarify on that—the SRO question—he clarified he wanted to know if the federal legislation did anything to remove SROs. Noting that given the relationship between the presence of SROs and the prevalence of mass shootings. So that was the context for the question. ORANSKY: Understood. Yeah, I don’t want to give a firmer answer than I know, but I don’t think that’s the case. I do believe that at least the COPS portion of the money, Community Oriented Policing Services, that office—the money that flows through that office could still be used for SROs. So in that sense, no. The federal law has not changed to reduce the presence of SROs in schools, to my knowledge. As I said, we do oppose armed SROs in schools. FASKIANOS: Great. So I just want to give you each—and we’re at the end of our time, sadly. We’ll download the questions and try to get back to you with some answers. I will ask Jonas to help with some of those answers, since we couldn’t get to them. But I want to give each of you a minute or so just to wrap up. And so, Jonas, we can start with you and then we’ll close with Vin. ORANSKY: Yeah. I just want to thank you all for being here and coming in large numbers to hear about the policy here. And, you know, thank you all for your passion. Repeat again that we’re very interested in helping folks identify the right opportunities to work in this area. And, you know, if we can—if we can help with local willpower, if we can help with capacity building, would be excited to do that as well. So just thank you to you all, and thanks to Irina and Vin. FASKIANOS: Vin. GUPTA: Well, thank you, everybody, as well. And second everything Jonas just said. Jonas, great to be here with you. On what in policies are most impactful, I recognize that that data—the data here on policy impact, we’re still building on that here in the United States. But it’s pretty clear, at least from the global perspective, on what works. Western Europe, most of Asia, they have gun safety courses that are mandatory. If you want to buy a gun, you meet eligibility. If you pass multiple background checks and a mental health assessment, you have to take a gun safety course as well. So those upfront friction points, if you want to call them friction points, do help. Making sure that we have clear guidance on safe gun storage, also a critical component of gun safety. In all these—in all of our peer advanced economy—or, all of our allies that have advanced economies where we do not see the rate of death from gun violence that we do see here, they make ample use of these, what I think, are pretty streamlined policy steps here. Mental health assessments, gun safety courses, and durable background checks. Those work. We have clear evidence from the global—from a global context that they are helpful in reducing morbidity and mortality from gun violence. And we should be—we should hopefully see more uptake of those policies here in the United States. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you both very much, and to all of you for what you’re doing in your communities and for giving us your time today. We will be sharing out these resources, as promised, in a follow-up email. You can follow Dr. Vin Gupta on Twitter at @vinguptamd. And you can follow Jonas Oransky’s work on the Everytown website, which is everytown.org and on Twitter at @everytown. So again, for our resources, we encourage you to visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis. And you can email us [email protected] to let us know how we can support the work that you’re doing, and with any other suggestions of issues you would like us to cover. So please stay safe and well, everybody. Thank you for joining us. And we look forward to our next conversation. Take care. (END)
  • Refugees and Displaced Persons
    Ukraine, Humanitarian Parole, and Refugee Resettlement
    Play
    Kelly A. Gauger, deputy director in the Office of Refugee Admissions at the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and Kit Taintor, vice president of policy and practice at Welcome.US and former refugee coordinator for the state of Colorado, discuss the Uniting for Ukraine program, humanitarian parole, and best practices for welcoming and supporting refugees in communities across the country.    TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you, and welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. We’re delighted to have participants from forty-seven states and territories to discuss “Ukraine, Humanitarian Parole, and Refugee Resettlement.” Our discussion is on the record. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine, and CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. So we are so delighted to have Kelly Gauger and Kit Taintor with us today. We’ve shared their bios with you so I will give you a few highlights. Kelly Gauger is the deputy director in the Office of Refugee Admissions at the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Her work includes oversight of the administration’s annual report to Congress on proposed refugee admissions, development of the bureau’s budget for the Refugee Admissions Program, and managing oversight of its seven resettlement support centers worldwide. She also helps manage the bureau’s relationship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration and Refugee Resettlement colleagues, and governments around the world. Kit Taintor is vice president of policy and practice at Welcome.US, a national nonprofit initiative designed to empower Americans from across the country to welcome and support those seeking refuge in the United States. She previously served as refugee coordinator for the state of Colorado and specialized in efforts related to refugee and community integration such as employment, social and emotional wellness, and community empowerment. She also served as the senior advisor for New American Integration in the office of Colorado Governor Jared Polis. So thank you both for being with us today. Kelly, I thought we could begin with you. We saw on March 24 President Biden’s announcement welcoming a hundred thousand Ukrainians to the U.S. Maybe you could begin by telling us how we are doing with that commitment and talk about the different pathways that Ukrainians can make their way to the U.S., given the war in their country. GAUGER: Thank you, Irina, and good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for joining us. Sure. So let me talk about that announcement from President Biden. That number, which, by the way, is not a set limit—we may end up welcoming more than a hundred thousand Ukrainians. It may be less, depending on how many are interested. There are two primary pathways for Ukrainians to seek protection, either temporary or permanent, in the United States. Following that announcement on March 24, on April 21 the president and, more importantly, the Department of Homeland Security announced a program called Uniting for Ukraine that allows individuals in the United States—and it’s a broad range of individuals; it’s not actually even just citizens but people who are lawfully present in the United States—can file an affidavit of support for a Ukrainian overseas who is outside of Ukraine and has fled the Russian war of aggression. And then once—this is a brand new program that the Department of Homeland Security stood up in record time, as far as I’m aware, and then allows—once the sponsors or the supporters in the United States are vetted in terms of their ability to support Ukrainians for some period of time in the United States and there is a bit of a background check as well to protect against trafficking and other such issues, then the Ukrainian overseas is able to complete their part of the application—it’s all online—and then receive, eventually, permission to travel to the United States and it gives them permission to board an airplane to the United States. DHS has relationships with airlines that, you know, facilitates this permission. The person arrives at port of entry and Customs and Border Protection makes the final decision to parole the individuals into the United States. I was on a call yesterday with DHS and they reported out some interesting statistics. So far, about thirty-seven thousand U for U supporters in the United States have filed applications indicating their interest to support a Ukrainian. As of yesterday, a little over twenty thousand Ukrainians had been given authorization to travel and, again, as of yesterday three thousand two hundred and twelve Ukrainian parolees had arrived and been given humanitarian parole at port of entry by CBP. So I think some people are a little surprised that although there are twenty thousand authorizations only three thousand have arrived. That actually mirrors what both Canada and the U.K. have seen, who have announced similar programs. They actually announced similar programs before we did. We’re a little bit behind Canada and the U.K., but they also have a relatively lagging uptake in travel authorizations when you look at actual travel, and a lot of people think that that’s because a lot of Ukrainians are applying for these permissions to travel to our three countries but not necessarily intending to travel right away but to kind of have it in their back pocket as—you know, if things drag on in Ukraine and/or get worse that they can take advantage of the travel authorization. So we’ll see how long that delta of the twenty thousand authorizations and the three thousand actual arrivals persists. OK. That’s Uniting for Ukraine. That’s a Department of Homeland Security program. I’m with the Department of State and we operate the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. We have been admitting Ukrainians and other nationalities of the former Soviet Union to the United States for many decades through a program called the Lautenberg Program, which is based on a piece of legislation that was passed by Congress in 1989 called the Lautenberg Amendment that lowered the evidentiary standards for religious minorities from the former Soviet Union seeking resettlement in the United States. So they don’t have to show a well-founded fear of persecution. They have to show that they’re a member of the protected group, and it’s a much lower evidentiary standard. It leads to a much higher approval rate, close to 100 percent, actually. So when that program was established in 1989 it was, largely, used by Russian Jews to get to the United States. These days, it is more commonly used by Ukrainian evangelical Christians and others. So we have long had this program that we’ve operated. It used to be based in Moscow until about five or six years ago when it became difficult for our partner, the International Organization for Migration, to operate in Moscow. So we moved the base of our operations to Kyiv about—I think it was about six or seven years ago, something like that. And so it’s one of our in-country programs. We have a clause in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that allows us to do in-country processing when authorized by the president, and the president has every year authorized in-country processing throughout the former Soviet Union. So this was an in-country program. When the war began we had about eighteen thousand Ukrainians in our Lautenberg pipeline, meaning anyone ranging from people who had just had an application submitted on their behalf the day before to about to get on an airplane. So a wide range of people throughout the Lautenberg pipeline. I should mention Lautenbergs also have to have a relative in the United States to file an application for them to come through the Lautenberg Program. So we—now that program has grown and we now have about twenty-four thousand Ukrainians in the pipeline. Some of those applications are so new we haven’t even really entered them and looked at them yet. But we only currently know the location of about twenty-five hundred of those twenty-four thousand people. We believe many of them are still in Ukraine where we actually can’t process them, but a number of them have come out and have notified us of their location. So we had to temporarily shut down our office in Kyiv. We’ve relocated to Chișinău, Moldova, and we are also about to open another office in Warsaw—in Poland—because the largest number of Lautenbergs for whom we know their location outside of Kyiv are based in Poland and there are a little over a thousand of them in Poland. So we are continuing to operate this program albeit with limited staff because none of the male Ukrainian staff of our resettlement support center have been permitted to leave Kyiv. So it’s only been the female staff who have been allowed to leave and move to Moldova and Poland. We’re hiring new staff to help them out. This resettlement support center is also processing all of our Afghan P-1 and P-2 referrals throughout Europe and Central Asia. So they have a big workload. But the bottom line is there is this universe of about twenty-four thousand Ukrainians who could make their way to the United States as refugees over the course of the next, let’s say, year or two depending on their location and where they are in the process. I don’t rule out that at some point we may be able to restart processing in Kyiv, maybe more likely in Lviv, which is a little bit further to the west and a little bit safer. But so there could be a time at which we are—we will be processing in Moldova, in Warsaw, and in Kyiv. We’re also capturing cases that based out of—based from our operations base in Moldova bases in Moldova and Poland will also be traveling to process cases that are located in other countries in the region such as Hungary, Romania, even Germany. So they’re mobile. They traveled. I think I might end there just to, again, say so largest number of Ukrainians coming to the U.S. will come through Uniting for Ukraine. They won’t be coming with refugee status. They’ll have parole status. A smaller number, up to twenty-four thousand—although I think that’s really the high-water point of refugees over the next couple of years. And together I have no doubt, actually, that—I have little doubt that we will reach a hundred thousand Ukrainians who will arrive in the United States through one of these mechanisms. And I’m going to turn it back to Irina, and I’ll be happy to answer questions at the end. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So, Kit, we’re going to go to you now to talk about the work that you’re doing at Welcome.US and how are Ukrainians welcomed into your communities, and can you talk about the community partnerships that are being formed? TAINTOR: Sure. Thank you, Irina, and thank you, Kelly, so much. Great to be here with all of you. I’m coming to you live from Colorado. So great to see so many of my state and local partners here on the call. So, as Kelly said, the primary pathway that Ukrainians that are seeking refuge from the war will come here is through Uniting for Ukraine. Again, it’s a new program but it does use kind of an old tool, if you will, that old tool being the pathway of humanitarian parole, which requires somebody—a named sponsor—to sign what’s called a declaration of financial support. So it’s really like the affidavit of support that Kelly talked about before but it’s a little bit lighter touch, if you will. The responsibilities of the sponsors aren’t necessarily exactly the same. So I wanted to make sure as we use a bunch of information and acronyms that we’re on the same page about the technical details behind that work. So, as Kelly mentioned, you know, this is one of the pathways and it’s really different than what we’ve seen before in the ways that we welcome newcomers, and what I mean by that it’s really different is because it does offer opportunities for everyday Americans like you and me to lean a bit more directly in to the welcoming process as sponsors, to sort of meet people at the airports, to help them find housing, and then to make sure that they have the documents that they need to have in order to restart their lives here. And so we find it to be really exciting. We have engaged with, you know, thousands and thousands of people and organizations who have raised their hand and said, you know what, we’ve seen all those pictures that we’ve all seen in the news about Ukraine and Ukrainians. We know that there’s a crisis in Europe of 7 million folks. We know that there’s countries like Poland and Moldova that are stepping in to offer refuge for Ukrainians and we want to be part of this, and it’s been really great to sort of see everyday Americans step in and really say, you know, we see our role here. We see our role as global citizens and we really want to take a part of this program. As Kelly said, you know, that you do have to have a sponsor and a beneficiary, so an individual will need to know somebody or find somebody in order to sponsor, and once that relationship is—and once that relationship is found people can begin to start the sponsorship process. So I know that there’s some questions in the chat around sort of how do you start that sponsorship process, and so there’s two ways. One, I’m going to invite you all to visit Welcome.US’s Ukraine hub. We’ve partnered with USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security to offer a little bit of, like, plain language, if you will, that helps people understand the sponsorship process and begins to point towards the actual sponsorship application, which is actually on USCIS’ website. A couple of quick notes that, I think, are really great about their website is that, one, this is an online application. So if any of you have worked with folks to fill in humanitarian parole applications before you’ll be very excited that this is no longer paper but it is an online application and there is no backlog. So Kelly mentioned the numbers of folks that have been approved and so what that’s telling me was in the past five or six weeks that this program has been running is that it’s been running pretty smoothly and things are getting approved pretty quickly, which is a testament, definitely, to our friends at the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS that do sort of recognize that that process is relatively easy when we’re thinking about government processes. It’s not like filing taxes, to tell you the truth. It’s a lot easier to move through that process. Another thing that I really like about the USCIS website is you’re able to create an account and you’re able to create an account in a way that you can see the full application, understand the different types of materials that you might need to show in order to move through that process. You know, when you sign the declaration of financial support you’re, basically, saying that you can help make sure that person gets on their feet and stabilizes here in the United States. And so you can look through and see what sort of material you need to show that, maybe a bank statement, maybe the fact that you have a job, sort of a note from your employer, what assets you plan to use to support somebody with their housing expenses—along those sorts of lines. So just note that. You know, and things that are scary in government, this I-134 United for Ukraine application is not one of those and that’s really great to see. You know, after that happens, again, you know, folks will get approved pretty quickly and you’ll begin to prep for arrival. People can arrive wherever in the United States. In the resettlement world there are sort of hubs of resettlement. So these tend to be larger cities where there are resettlement agencies. There doesn’t need to be a resettlement agency in the city where somebody arrives, so just sort of noting that key difference. But what we are seeing are patterns of arrival that really closely mirror where there are existing Ukrainian-American populations. So you guys are active in your states and local communities so you probably know whether or not you have a large Ukrainian-American community but I’ll sort of call out those cities that come into focus for me, and those are New York, Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Sacramento. So you’ll note that—again, that those are communities that have welcomed refugees before. They did just welcome Afghans and now that they are seeing Ukrainians, so just noting that that’s a pattern to be proud of because that recognizes that there are strong immigrant communities already in that space and then, again, that these are communities that are welcoming to newcomers. You know, after someone arrives people are expected to help that newcomer kind of find their footing here in the United States and begin that pathway. Note that it is really important to recognize that humanitarian parole does not confer automatic work authorization. So you do have to apply for work authorization once you arrive. If you check the USCIS website they do have a kind of tracker about how long work authorization applications are taking, depending on where you are in the United States. But I think that a pretty good marker and what we’ve seen for Afghans is around six months from date of arrival to people getting work authorization. I do want to take a time out and note that our friends at the Department of Homeland Security made some recent changes that allowed for automatic worker extensions for other populations. So people who already had work authorization here in the United States no longer have to enter, for the lack of a better word, that queue. They are able to get that sort of automatic. And so we’re still hopeful—I think everybody in this process is hopeful that that’s going to clear out that backlog and so we might not be actually looking at six months. But that’s sort of what it looks like right now. You know, once people get here, again, that sponsor is sort of supposed to help people find housing, connect with healthcare. One of the things that beneficiaries have to do soon after they arrive, for instance, is to get a TB test. So the sponsor would be really helping the beneficiary by helping them navigate that process. But I want to take a time out here and celebrate something that happened over the weekend, and the thing that happened over the weekend is President Biden signed a(n) additional law that allows people who are coming in underneath Uniting Ukraine expanded access to some really, really key benefits that everyone on this call is excited about. Those include, like, federal public benefits—Medicaid, SNAP, childcare assistance, TANF—all of those things that people might need to lean upon for a short amount of time before they’re able to have earned income in their families and to be able to provide that support. So really exciting, more than likely in your states. And I know in Colorado, for instance, people are figuring out, like, do they need to run emergency rules, what updates to their eligibility systems might they need to be doing. So note that that work is probably ongoing in your city to make sure that people when they apply with their humanitarian paperwork underneath Uniting for Ukraine that it is moving through that process. But, again, one of my favorite things about Medicaid, in particular, is the ability to backdate Medicaid for ninety days. So I know that health insurance is a big concern for beneficiaries and for sponsors alike so just, really, always like to call that out that that’s a function of most states’ federal Medicaid eligibility rules. The other thing that people became eligible for is services funded under the Office of Refugee Resettlement. So really exciting because that is the tool that works alongside other refugee populations to really make sure that people have connections to case management, employment, mental health services, legal services, all sorts of things. It’s important for you guys to recognize that as federal funding flows from the Office of Refugee Resettlement it flows in two distinct ways, if I can oversimplify things. One is it might flow directly to refugee resettlement agencies in your local community to offer some of those case management or employment supports. But there’s other money that comes straight to states, and so we do expect for money to come in to state refugee coordinator offices, which could be within state government or outside state government, depending on where you are, that allows the state sort of from a state perspective to figure out where the gaps that this money needs to fill, based on what they’re seeing in local communities that Ukrainian beneficiaries need. You know, I think the mantra of me and my counterparts that come out of states is, really, that immigration policy is federal. Immigration integration is local. So a lot of the work that’s going to happen over the next couple of days, weeks, and months is really going to be a lot of that integration work that is more than likely already happening in many of the communities that you represent and happening in a good portion, in part, by community organizations. One thing, Irina, that we’re really tracking is that refugee resettlement agencies are going to be able to avail themselves of some federal dollars. But there’s some other really key organizations over the past couple of weeks and months that have leaned into this space, most especially our organizations that are Ukrainian-American led, and it’s been really, really great to see them pivot from being primarily, you know, like, cultural or education institutions. Maybe they held Ukrainian classes after school or celebrated big holidays. But they have really stepped up and stepped in. So one of my recommendations to state and local partners is to really make sure that you’re pulling in that Ukrainian-American community and, potentially, the community that serves different types of immigrant populations to help wrap their arms around the refugee resettlement infrastructure, knowing that the refugee resettlement infrastructure just went through an overwhelming number of Afghans coming into your cities and to your locations. And so if I were them I would be exhausted. I would be appreciative of the help. So just noting that as you go forth and plan for Ukrainians coming in that I would really invite you to figure out, like, who else in the community can make—has the skills and the expertise that might be able to help a state out or a local community out or a nonprofit ecosystem out with a lot of that work. And, again, Irina, we’ve been super grateful and excited to see the number of Americans, American institutions, American agencies, really standing up and wanting to be part of it, you know, as sort of an historic event on top of, you know, another historic event and really allows us to showcase as Americans what we mean by welcoming and knowing that, again, you know, we’re a nation of immigrants. We were, you know, always meant to be a place where people could find refuge, and these two opportunities—the arrival of Afghans and the arrivals of Ukrainians underneath Uniting for Ukraine—really allow us to step in in ways that, I think, are key. We’ve got a lot of stuff on our website that I want to sort of forecast, but I want to note that the team of the Council for Foreign Relations is going to send this out for you. So don’t feel like you need to scribble it down. We’ve got a Ukraine hub. A couple of really great things on the Ukraine hub right now are links to resources for sponsors. So, for instance, if a sponsor is thinking, huh, I wonder how much money I need to make sure that I have three or four months of support for this Ukrainian family that I want to bring into my community we have a budget template. It’s super simple but it does help you thinking about how you do that. We really encourage that people use that template to work with friends. It can be a lot to sponsor a newcomer and so do it in community. Do it with the church. Do it with your bridge group. Do it alongside an organization. Do it alongside an employer. There are lots of great—different great opportunities where you don’t have to do it alone. Other things that we’ve got on our website, hot off the presses an hour ago is, like, a guide for filling out the I-134 United for Ukraine humanitarian parole application. So kind of like the tips and tricks that we’re seeing, you know, about that, common questions that have been coming up, and, really, wanting to drill down on more specificity to folks. We’ve got an explainer on our website that will be updated tomorrow—so just forecasting that for you guys as well—with a little bit more detail. For instance, one of the questions that we’re getting is, can I bring a pet if I’m coming in underneath Uniting for Ukraine as a beneficiary. So those types of questions will be answered there. Next week we’ll have a little bit kind of more in depth of a(n) engagement module. That’ll be—a Sponsorship 101 is up there now but I’m calling it, like, a Sponsorship 401. I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s a 201. It’s really a 401. Takes you all the way through making sure that sponsors understand power dynamics that might exist in relationships between sponsor and beneficiaries, all the way to how do I find out who a federally qualified health care center in my area might be that I need to connect to—my beneficiary to. So a lot of really great resources. We’re so excited to partner with USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security to do this. We’ve also been partnering with the Office of Refugee Resettlement at Health and Human Services and also partnering with Offices of New Americans and state refugee offices across the United States. So a lot of good work. I hope that this saves everybody time, to tell you the truth, that we put all the information up there, and you can just point folks to our website as you get interest, whether someone wants to be a sponsor or just wants to understand a little bit more about Uniting for Ukraine. So thanks, Irina. FASKIANOS: That was great. Thank you both for the international view and the local view, and, as Kit said, we will send out links to the URLs through the websites and other links that were mentioned so, again, you don’t have to worry about that. I’m going to take—we are now going to your questions so you can either raise your hands. We would love to hear your voice—(laughs)—and we already have two raised hands. Great. Or you can put your question—write it in the Q&A box and I will try to get to those as well. So the first raised hand comes from Matt Joseph. Please unmute yourself and identify yourself so we know what state you’re coming from and what your—give us the context. Q: Hello. This is Matt Joseph. I’m a Dayton city commissioner here in Dayton, Ohio. We are proud to be a welcoming city, and the question I have is actually a practical one. We have a very large concentration of Ahiska Turks here and they have many relatives in Ukraine. So they’re—a number of the groups have asked me about how to get the relatives here. So we were thrilled when this program came out. But the difficulty we’re having is a practical one and that is how do we get them here. Have you seen any models of how it works? Are sponsors paying individually for folks to come? I assume that’s probably the overriding one. In our case, a lot of people who would be sponsors that would be a pretty big burden on them. So I’m actually trying to organize now and trying to figure out how to get folks here and any suggestions you have would be welcome. Thank you. GAUGER: Kit, I’m going to defer to you to start that answer, at least. I think you might have a better, more fulsome answer than I might. TAINTOR: Yeah. I think—so I think one of the things is, is that this is—this is an issue—so I want to recognize that this is an issue in Dayton and it’s an issue for other communities, as well, that that we recognize. Right now, after that travel authorization is granted, the onus is on the sponsor or the beneficiary to find flights. We are trying to work with partners, such as Miles for Migrants or other groups like that, to make sure that some of the things that have been set up for other populations seeking refuge are also available to other folks. I just want to sort of note that with all of Kelly’s great—the numbers we are still about six weeks—five or six weeks into a relatively new program. So thanks for kind of compassion and patience there while we also understand the urgency. So I’ll note on that particular piece there’s also a lot of conversations around how we make sure that we backstop families with funds for sponsors and things like that. So I would really invite an offline conversation, Matt, that we can have to make sure that your community is sort of tied in as those things become more available. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m going to go next to Ryann Woods, who is, I think, from—it’s a written question of—policy analyst from—in the Housing Community Development and Veterans Office about what is the difference between refugee and parolee status, and I think it would be good just to give that definition so that people are clear on that. GAUGER: Sure. Sorry that we didn’t do that at the beginning. Refugee status—if you arrive via the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program you arrive immediately work authorized, although, I guess, you’d still have to complete a form for an EAD. But you’re work authorized. You are eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence in one year and citizenship in five. So it is a path to citizenship. Parole is a—it’s a status or a route of—that DHS allows someone to travel to the United States for people who don’t have another pathway to the United States. So people are actually not supposed to be paroled in if they have a refugee pathway to the United States. Various administrations have used it in different ways. The Trump administration severely, severely restricted the use of parole. The Biden administration is using it very expansively. So it’s, basically, a status that allows you to be lawfully present in the United States and to apply for work authorization but it does not lead to any permanent status. For the most part, if someone comes here on parole and wants to stay, they most likely will have to apply for asylum with the Department of Homeland Security. TAINTOR: I’ll note that that’s also a high bar. Asylum is a pretty high bar, Kelly, as you note, and so just noting that people can apply but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s something that’s going to be approved. And a lot of folks coming in through the Uniting for Ukraine program might not actually have kind of viable asylum applications, so just noting that while we’re so excited about the urgency—we were able to get here people so quickly and that is such a win—there is sort of the flipside of that is this is a temporary status and it doesn’t confer a path to permanency, and it can be a pretty high bar to move for permanency for a lot of these folks. GAUGER: Yeah, that is very true. We actually were just speaking with USCIS this afternoon about that, that although Lautenberg Ukrainians don’t have to show a well-founded fear of persecution, other Ukrainians would. And it is unclear right now how strong many persecution claims or many asylum claims from Ukrainians might be. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Montana Senator Shannon O’Brien., who has raised her hand. Q: There we go. Hi there. Thanks so much. Really appreciate you being here or sharing. I just wanted to, I guess, invite or ask if—the National Conference of State Legislatures has a summit that’s in Denver—Kit, I see you’re in Colorado—the 1st of August, and I’ll put that in the chat. But I’m in Missoula. We have soft landing, which has been great. Folks are coming. And I think increased awareness would be really helpful. Our legislature has not been really excited to invite people to Montana, and so I think just some increased awareness would be real helpful. So it would be great to have you there. Thank you. TAINTOR: I would love it. As you said, I mean, I think that there’s a lot of opportunities for communication and making sure everyone’s on the same page. I think, you know, I feel very overwhelmed with everything that’s happening in the news. I’m sure everybody feels overwhelmed with all of what’s happening. And so we would definitely invite in additional opportunities to make sure people feel informed about this opportunity and also kind of the opportunity that it presents to everyday Americans to welcome folks. FASKIANOS: Great. That’s a great suggestion, Senator, and we’re in touch with NCSL. So we’ll make that connection, too. All right. So let’s go to the next question. I’m going to take a written question from Julia Spiegel, who’s in the office of the California governor, deputy legal affairs secretary: Do you have recommendations for what kinds of immigration relief may be available for Ukrainians who are already here, for example those who are on J-1 visas? TAINTOR: So, Kelly, I can take a stab at this if you’d like. So I want to remind folks about the temporary protected status that happened. And, Kelly, please correct me if my data’s wrong, but I believe that you had to be in the United States on April 11th. Does that feel right? GAUGER: So I know that there was an initial date established and then another date was established later. Was April 11th the second date? TAINTOR: I think so. It’s either April 1st or April 11th, but maybe I’ll google it, Irina, and we can send it out as a follow up. FASKIANOS: Great. TAINTOR: But just noting that if you were in the United States on that day, you now have the opportunity to apply for temporary protected status. And so note temporary protected status is temporary, but then I’d also like to reflect that we’ve had Salvadorans on temporary protected status since the 1990s. And so there are all—you know, all sorts of different, you know, ways that that has been implemented, and temporary protected status, like the J-1 visa, allows for employment and allows for a certain set of benefits—not as robust as a status like refugee status would allow you to, but some really great benefits, especially of course in California with your very robust and inclusive public policies. So just noting that I think a lot of it is individualized. And in these cases, you know, we are also hearing about Ukrainians who arrived on B-1/B-2 sort of tourist visas as well, so just noting that each case is going to be slightly different. I know immigration lawyers and law firms and legal services providers are overwhelmed, but I think it is a—is an opportunity to check in with them and figure out what those available pathways might be kind of if that’s—if that’s the situation that you’re seeing. GAUGER: And I might just add I’m looking at a DHS dashboard that as of yesterday they had received 10,489 TPS applications from Ukrainians since April 19th, so a pretty significant number of Ukrainians. I don’t know how that compares to the number of Ukrainians who are present in the United States, but a pretty significant number have applied for TPS. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m going to go next to Idaho Representative Lance Clow. And if you can unmute yourself. There you go. Q: OK. Yeah, I am a representative. My question kind of comes—our extended family, my daughter and my son-in-law who’s sitting with me right now, are sponsoring a Ukrainian gal that’s coming to the United States. She arrives in June. We already got tickets and all that. So a couple of questions. You’ve answered about work, but she’s actually a student at one of the universities in Ukraine, so—and she’s been living—she got out of the country. She went to Spain and she’s on her way to the United States. Will she be able to enroll in universities and colleges in Idaho? Because that may be a requirement for her to continue her online education with her Ukrainian university. Is there some kind of rule like that? And then I have another question, quickly. TAINTOR: I’ll answer that quickly. Yeah, she should be able to enroll, Representative. I think one of the questions is whether or not she would be eligible for in-state tuition. There have been a couple of states, Colorado included, that have passed laws that allow in-state tuition upon arrival for refugees and other folks, but I don’t think that that’s common. I anticipate that probably in-state tuition is reserved for people who have resided in Idaho for, let’s say, a year. So just sort of flagging that it’s a yes, but then also she’s probably going to be classified for out-of-state tuition. Q: OK. My other question. You referenced asylum—you know, this parole visa is two years, and then after that they can apply for asylum. What is the significance of eventually applying for asylum? I’ve got the impression you can’t return to the country. GAUGER: Well, if you—yeah. If you apply for asylum, it provides permanent status in the United States. And, yes, a DHS asylum officer would probably look critically at somebody who had since returned—you know, if they had come to the United States and then returned to Ukraine and then came home or came back to the United States. Getting asylum in the United States does not mean that you can never return home. Actually, many people who get asylum or refugee status in the United States at some point return home. Maybe I shouldn’t say many, but a lot. I know a lot of people that have arrived through the Lautenberg program over the years have eventually gone home. And also, I just wanted to say I have heard—and Kit, you can correct me if you’ve heard differently—I have heard from DHS that at the end of the two years you can also apply for an additional two years. I don’t know what the likelihood is that an additional two years will be granted, but there is—the DHS has held up the possibility that at the end of two years someone could apply for another two years. TAINTOR: Yeah. Representative, one thing I would point out is that I think people have different comfort levels in traveling when they’re on sort of a legal permanent residence or a green-card status and when they travel once they’re a citizen. So just noting Kelly mentioned before that the distance between getting legal permanent residence, which is a pathway for asylum, and then getting citizenship is about—you know, about five years total if not a little bit more. And so what we find with a lot of folks is they find more comfort in leaving once they’re a citizen because they’re a naturalized citizen and so, you know, returning home isn’t as big of a deal as might be if your asylum case is still continuous or if your situation is a green card. So just want to throw that out that, you know, once you become a citizen, then you have the same rights as every other citizen in the United States and people feel a lot more comfortable traveling at that time. Q: Thank you very much. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Steve Bloess—I’m probably not pronouncing that correctly—who’s written a question but also raised his hand. So if you could identify yourself—unmute and identify yourself. And I this is probably for you, Kelly. Q: I’m Steve Bloess. I’m just a poor, poor councilman in Sedalia, Missouri. We’ve got a lot of Ukrainian residents in Pettis County, about five thousand, which is the surrounding county. We’re the county seat. We’ve done a lot with them raising funds, but some of the funds have been—have gone to—and thank you guys for everything you’ve done. I know you’ve been catching them faster than you can string them for months. But they have a lot of relatives or did have a lot of relatives in the last couple weeks, last time I talked to them, they are—that they’re taking things to at the Mexican border, and they want to get them in as quickly as they can. So can—would this—would you guys point me in the right direction? Will the Lautenberg situation help them? Would someone contact me maybe later with my email address and help me untangle the process for them so that they can help their family members south of us? GAUGER: Sure. Kit, I’m going to start and then I’ll have—ask you to come in behind me. So a large number of Ukrainians successfully approached the southern border and were paroled into the United States. However, once Uniting for Ukraine was announced on that day in April, which I think was April 21st, the Department of Homeland Security, it’s my understanding, stopped paroling people in at the southern border and instead have directed people to Uniting for Ukraine. And so anyone—any Ukrainian who is present in Mexico right now needs to go through the Uniting for Ukraine process that Kit and I have spoken about. The online application that Kit describes as being relatively user-friendly and—I don’t want to say simple, but you know, especially if you go to Welcome.US and look at their Ukraine information. So people are not being—from my understanding, people are not being paroled in at the southern border. So they need to get online, do the application, have someone in the United States do the I-134 affidavit of support, and then get approved, and then request the permission for travel, and then travel to the United States and request humanitarian parole with CBP when they arrive. FASKIANOS: OK. We’ll go on. I’m going to go next to Mayor Jennifer Talley, if you can unmute yourself. Q: Hi. Jennifer Talley, mayor of Graham, North Carolina. I have hosted thirteen exchange students through the years, and all of my exchange students when they left and went through this process always went back to their wonderful families. But I have a daughter that was in Venezuela, and everyone knows what’s happened kind of in Venezuela, but eventually, basically, like fifteen of her family members came here to America and sought asylum. And I know like for the first six months they can’t work. They have to basically have someone to kind of sponsor them, give them a place to live, all of that sort of thing. And now they’re just thriving. I mean, they’re just doing so well. My question is, is under this program are they—like, is our goal really to be trying to find families that will support them for a period of time until they can work? Or what is that time period? Like, what do we—what do we need to be asking people to do? Because, obviously, I have a lot of connections in the—in the exchange student program, people with extra rooms in their houses and that sort of thing that would be most likely very willing to help. So I’m not really sure from this program what we’re supposed to be looking for in our communities to be able to assist. So that’s what I’m looking for, some direction today. GAUGER: Kit, I’m going to turn that to you. TAINTOR: Thanks, Kelly. And, Mayor, so happy to hear about the folks from Venezuela. That’s often what we see, is that given an opportunity, given a door to walk through, people do thrive in the United States. So really great to hear about that story. You know, folks coming in is going to be really dependent on their individual situation. I want to, you know, remark that we have seen a fair number of Ukrainian beneficiaries who already worked remote, let’s say, and will be able to work remote here. Those folks might not need a ton of support. Other folks might be starting from scratch. Their assets might have been wiped out, they might not have any income, and that they’ll need sort of that path forward. So before I sort of answer the question specifically, I just want to acknowledge the fact that every single person is going to be different and sort of have different pathways to stability and economic security here in the United States. What we recommend are two things. One is to encourage sponsors or sponsor groups or, you know, sponsors alongside organizations or businesses or other folks that can help them raise the money. Would be about $3,000 per newcomer, and that’s just sort of based on what lived experience looks like, adding into account, you know, sort of the path forward for folks. But we also do have that budget template I talked about, Mayor, that also lines out sort of what cost might somebody need to cover, and I really recommend going through that. That can help you visualize, you know, if you are—you know, for instance, if the beneficiary is staying in your basement apartment, you don’t need to think about housing, and so that might change the amount of money that you need to raise for that particular family. If you’re sponsoring a family of seven and they’ve got, you know, kids and dogs and all that sort of stuff, maybe they’re not going to fit into your basement apartment and you are going to need to help them find an apartment in North Carolina to make sure that they feel safe and secure. So just note we recommend about $3,000 per beneficiary, but that is just an average and, you know, might be different dependent on the case of the beneficiary, the cost of living where you live, whether or not you’re going be able to offer them housing, and the other things that you might be able to either fundraise or fund and support. The other thing we do have on our website, to just make note of this, Mayor, is a fundraising tool. So, for instance, if people are really concerned about raising that money, we do really recommend that people ask neighbors to lean in. We’ve heard a lot from people who say I can’t sponsor but I want to help. I think you’ll find that in Graham, North Carolina, too. So, you know, that’s also sort of a recommended tool that we’ve got there to help people visualize, A, what they’re going to need, and then work towards being able to plan for it. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m going to go next to Cody Allen, who’s with the Southern Legislative Conference in Georgia: What resources are there for states looking to ease access to occupational licenses for refugees? In Georgia, we have a lot of refugees who are underemployed. TAINTOR: Well, I personally love this question because it’s one that we get a lot. And it’s not, you know, just refugees, but it’s immigrants, it’s humanitarian parolees, it is all folks. And one of the things I want to make clear is that most of occupational licensing is at the state level, not the federal level. So noting that there’s a lot of that, what folks can do on the ground, I know NCSL has had a lot of work in this space as well as other—as other local partners. It’s a known issue. It’s a challenging issue. But really, the power to change this is at the state and local level, and so I encourage folks to get in contact with their department of—regulatory agencies or whatever wherever occupational license is overseen to see what they’re working on in this particular space. FASKIANOS: Great. Go next to Frederick Sneesby, who has his hand raised. Q: Yeah, hi. FASKIANOS: There you go. Q: In Rhode—I’m in Rhode Island. And when the Afghans came, most everyone came as humanitarian parolees and they came through the resettlement agencies. And so when I’m looking at the Ukrainians coming as parolees, and you had mentioned either through Uniting for Ukraine or Lautenberg, but will there be another portal, if you will, established through the resettlement agencies? And the reason I ask is that thinking ahead that—of numerous sponsors bringing people into the state sort of invites chaos in terms of finding housing, accessing medical care, getting into schools, employment, education, and so forth—meeting basic needs. When people are flowing through the resettlement agencies, there’s a better chance of coordination and collaboration among a bunch of social-service agencies. So I’m just wondering—two questions, I guess. Is there going to be another portal, for lack of a better word, flowing through the resettlement agency system? And is there a way to find out who the sponsors are in Rhode Island if people are coming through Uniting for Ukraine just so we can begin to organize a little bit better? GAUGER: I’m going to start and say I’m really glad that you asked this question because I asked my colleague Holly Herrera, who is in charge of our domestic resettlement team, the very same question this morning. I said, this is great that we—that Ukrainians are now eligible because of recent legislation that the president signed over the weekend, but how do they know? Because these Ukrainians are not coming through our traditional program. And she—Kit, her answer was that she thought that the Office of Refugee Resettlement was going to use their Preferred Communities funding to kind of spread the word about this. But I wonder if you—oh, there’s Holly. I wonder if either of you have any further information about that, because I agree it would be great to make sure that Ukrainians coming through United for—Uniting for Ukraine are aware that they can access these programs through resettlement agencies. TAINTOR: Yeah, one thing that I’ll just sort of dive in in—and Frederick, I know—I know that you know this well—is that there are other populations that are eligible—other immigrant populations that are eligible for Office of Refugee Resettlement services that do not come through the United States Refugee Admissions Program. So good examples of this would be people that have been granted asylum, so asylees become eligible for our benefits. You know, Cuban/Haitian entrants are often eligible for benefits. So it’s not something that we haven’t faced before, but does necessarily—does, to your point, need a different toolkit, if you will. And so one of the reasons that I’d really bring up working with United—Ukrainian-American organizations or other organizations that have stepped forward in this space to provide support for sponsors, as those are natural nexuses to get this sort of information out. That is really different than what we rely on. I am always reminded about the fact that refugee resettlement agencies don’t necessarily have to go out and find their clients; their clients come to them as part of the USRAP program, and this is a little bit different. And so I think that ORR is thinking about this through the Preferred Communities and also invite in state and local governments to also think about, as money begins to flow from the federal government, how might infrastructures need to look a little bit different to make sure that the word gets out. Simply because, you know, for instance, we know that people aren’t going to just, you know, kind of be assigned a case manager at a resettlement agency; that they’re really going to have to learn about that resettlement agency, find that resettlement agency, and ultimately advocate for their services at that particular agency. So, Holly, I don’t know if you want to add anything. Yeah. GAUGER: Holly, do you want to add? HERRERA: Yes. I think you—I think you both covered it very well. The only thing I wanted to mention, too, is that with this population, you know, they do have supporters that they are going to be helping them in the United States. So when you talk about services that the resettlement agencies typically provide for refugees and for the Afghan parolees such as enrolling in school and so on and getting connected to services, those same resettlement agencies and partners will also likely be receiving funding from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to serve Ukrainians. And so they will help when needed to do some of the things like connecting them to schools and other services, and then certainly providing a lot of the funded services that ORR is going to be providing. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. I’m going to go next to Christina Bruce-Bennion. Christina, do you want to just ask your question? Or I can read it. Let me give you the opportunity to—putting her on the spot. OK. I do not see her coming on, so I will just ask is. So Christina is with the Idaho Office for Refugees. And— Q: I’m sorry. I think it might have just let me unmute. Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: Oh, there we go. Yes. Great. Thank you. Q: I didn’t see the way to unmute for a minute. Thanks for taking my question and thanks for the information. This is a little bit of a follow-on, I guess, to the previous question. But in our office we’ve been thinking a lot about sort of the equity as people are landing, in some cases where there is resettlement and some cases where there is not. And in a state like Idaho where they are—you know, it’s really big distances between certain communities, and if they’re eligible for things like RCA—which is great; we’re super happy to see that addition to the landscape. You know, there are just a lot of things on the—like, the implementation level, right, that are really—I mean, you know, Kit could probably roll her eyes when she thinks about data or, you know, things like that. But you know, there’s—there is just a lot of stuff on the—you know, just thinking, again, about this, like, access. And so I guess I’m curious, maybe Kelly, one from PRM’s perspective—even though I know a lot of this is running through DHS and not PRM—but, like, what are the—sort the equity questions or the equity—you know, in terms of, like, what if someone doesn’t access services and doesn’t get them and that? You know, like, you know, who’s—I guess the onus is on whom for that? You know, like, is it really up to the client to, like, seek out, are the agencies really trying to track down? And then, from a data perspective and just kind of, again, sort of this equity piece, like, if we don’t know that people are coming in or a sponsorship circle, like, never reaches out or isn’t in a resettlement community, I don’t know, I guess it’s—yeah. So we’re all still learning and I think the infrastructure thing definitely has to improve on our end for sure. But just those are a lot of the questions we’ve been thinking about because they’re—from our perspective, the immigration status doesn’t change what they’ve been through and the kind of support that they will need. And so, yeah, I guess that’s—if you have any thoughts on that. Thank you. GAUGER: Christina, good to hear from you. It’s been a long time. Holly, I’m going to turn that over to you if you have thoughts about that. It’s, frankly, not—it’s not an issue that I have spent a lot of time thinking about. Maybe I should, now that you’ve answered—asked the question. But—and maybe the following assumption is incorrect, but I actually have been operating under the assumption that there are going to be quite a number of Ukrainians who will be coming here to join family members who won’t seek benefits out at all and won’t need them, and that their family members are applying for them to come for a certain amount of time knowing that, you know, they’ll be providing a place for them to stay and so on. I, frankly, don’t even know how many Ukrainians will be seeking work here. So it’s not—it’s admittedly not an issue that I have thought a lot about. But, Holly or Kit, I wonder, maybe starting with Holly, is this something that you’ve thought about? HERRERA: Yes. What I would say is that—so it is the Office of Refugee Resettlement and Health and Human Services who has received the supplemental appropriation to serve Ukrainians, and they are currently working on just this question: What is the best way to ensure access given, as Kelly says, that the need for services may not be the same as with other populations? But in terms of ensuring that those who do need services and assistance—whether it’s medical assistance or, you know, enrollment in particular programs, employment, so on—whether that’s available to them. And so while nothing has been finalized yet—and I’m sitting here in a room with my partners right now and conversing with them about just this topic—is that they are considering, first of all, two things, at least to this point that I know of, are working with the states, the state refugee coordinators. Some may be on this call. So the state refugee coordinators will have that overview of the entire state and the programs and systems that they need to stand up in order to ensure that services are accessible. And then, secondly, working with remote services. So Preferred Communities was mentioned earlier. I don’t think that’s set in stone yet. But the idea being that you could perhaps have a remote program like Preferred Communities be that access point for services for the Ukrainians. And perhaps Kit has more to add. FASKIANOS: Kit, over to you. TAINTOR: Yeah. I mean, I think it’s so great, Christina, that you’re thinking about this, because I actually think that you have the most power—(laughs)—of this about—of any of us, because a lot of the money will be coming to you. And the Idaho Office of Refugees, you know, obviously, has large statutory authority to determine how to solve the very question that you’re asking. So just noting that I’m super excited that you’re thinking about it. Some of Welcome.US’s recommendations that we’ve put in to our friends over at HHS really follow along some of these things. How do we make sure that, you know, states are given the sort of flexibility and adaptability that they need within the regulations to make sure that these sorts of new programs or innovations can be rolled out, especially as, you know—you know, we saw private sponsorship, let’s say, in the Afghans that you talked about, we’ll see it more of a program coming forward? And so how can this opportunity be used to sort of begin to change a little bit about the way that states structure their programs? So I think that’s one of our recommendations. And then one of our other recommendations is to really think about how ORR in particular might be able to support some of the organizations that are already doing this work, noting that they’re already connected to beneficiaries, they’re already connected to sponsors. And so sort of we won’t be putting the pressure on resettlement agencies or the resettlement agency infrastructure that exists to do all of the outreach and engagement, but instead really partnering with organizations, again, that are already doing this work to allow them to provide equity through their lanes of services to make sure that we’re not necessarily reliant on a very narrow kind of path for people to get involved but we’re opening the door for more Americans, American institutions, and American agencies to be involved. But super excited that you’re thinking about it. I’m always happy to brainstorm offline on what I think other states are looking at that potentially, you know, might be of relevance to your community. GAUGER: Maybe, Irina, one last word from me. And I see it’s almost or it is 3:30, so we probably need to wrap up. But something that has occurred to me during this call, most particularly during Kit and Holly’s recent comments, but also a question that a gentleman asked—I’m sorry; I don’t remember he was from—asked about whether states can find out where sponsors are located. And, Kit, I wonder if you might be the most familiar with this. It would be interesting to know if anyone has asked the Department of Homeland Security if they could provide some more granular information to—I don’t know whom—to ORR, to the states about where exactly people are. I mean, I’m looking at, I think—I’m looking at the DHS dashboard that shows, you know, the top area—New York; Newark, New Jersey; Jersey City, 5,806 people—but that’s a—that’s a big territory, right? So would they be willing to provide like a state-by-state, maybe even a city-by-city report? Has that—do you know if anyone has asked DHS about that? TAINTOR: Every Friday. (Laughs.) GAUGER: You do? TAINTOR: Yeah. So I think—I think you mentioned before that there are only, you know, three thousand or so people that arrived, so I just don’t think we’ve tipped into the place where that information can be both protective and public. So I do understand from our USCIS and DHS friends that they are working on what to display and how to display it for the very reasons, but I want to be, you know, really kind of clear that what USCIS has is they have where a sponsor applied. GAUGER: Right, right. TAINTOR: It’s not necessarily where the beneficiary is. And the, secondarily there’s probably not a world in which the sponsor is identified, but there is a world in which information is shared with states and local communities to allow you to know where to do outreach and engagement to make sure that sponsors step forward and identify themselves. GAUGER: Yeah, true. That number I just gave, yes, I didn’t clarify. That was the number of supporters, not the number of Ukrainians in that area. So, yeah, no, point taken. TAINTOR: Yeah. FASKIANOS: Great. Well, I’m sorry that this hour’s just disappeared, vanished. It was such— TAINTOR: This was a great discussion. FASKIANOS: Great discussion, great engagement from all of you, and thank you for the work you’re doing in your communities. There are so many more questions. Just to say it again, we will be sending out a link to the video and the transcript, as well as, you know, going through all the resources that were mentioned. But I will just leave you with the Ukrainian hub is Ukrainian.Welcome.US, right, Kit? That’s the correct URL? But again, we will put that in an email to all of you. Thank you for all that you’re doing and thank you, Kit Taintor and Kelly Gauger. We really appreciate all the work that you’re doing in your respective areas on this issue, which is so important to us and to humanity. So thank you very much. So, again, you can follow us, CFR’s State and Local Officials Initiative, on Twitter at @CFR_local. And of course, always please come to CFR.org and ForeignAffairs.com for information on foreign policy, different expertise and analysis. So, again, thank you, Kelly and Kit. GAUGER: Thanks for all the great— TAINTOR: Thank you. GAUGER: Thanks for all the great questions, everybody. Take care. (END)
  • Climate Change
    Cooling the Planet Through Solar Reflection
    Play
    Stewart M. Patrick, the James H. Binger senior fellow in global governance and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at CFR, and Robert J. Lempert, principal researcher and director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition at the RAND Corporation, discuss climate intervention techniques including solar geoengineering and considerations for policymakers in exploring new and uncertain climate change mitigation strategies Transcript FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach at CFR. We are delighted to have participants from forty U.S. states and territories with us today. Today’s discussion is on the record. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. And CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of topics. We are pleased to have Stewart Patrick and Robert Lempert with us today. We have shared their bios, so I’ll just give you a few highlights. Stewart Patrick is the James Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at CFR. Dr. Stewart previously served on the former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s policy planning staff for a range of global and transnational issues, including refugees and migration, international law enforcement, and global health affairs. He is the author, co-author, or editor of five books, including The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World, and Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats, and International Security. And he also writes the CFR blog The Internationalist. Robert Lempert is principal researcher at the RAND Corporation and director of the Frederick Pardee Center for Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition at RAND Corporation. Dr. Lempert is also a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School and author of the book Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Longer-Term Policy Analysis. He is also a member of California’s Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group, and has been a member of numerous study panels for the U.S. National Academies, including America’s Climate Choices and Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. So thank you both for being with us. Stewart, I thought we would begin with you. You just put forth a Council special report on reducing climate risk through sunlight reflection. We sent out that report in advance of this discussion, but if you could just give us an overview of the arguments you put forward and some of the policy recommendations. PATRICK: Thanks so much, Irina, and I’m delighted to be with you all here and to share the virtual floor, as it were, with Rob Lempert, who’s done so much work on local approaches to climate mitigation and resilience. I want to pay special tribute to Irina, who is by far the hardest-working employee at the Council on Foreign Relations with a massive portfolio and an evident need for a lot less sleep than the rest of us need to have. This is my first time speaking to CFR’s State and Local program, and I look forward to your questions and comments about how you see this issue, where the rubber meets the road, which is of course in our communities. I’ll get my thesis out front. You know, from the suffocating heat we’re seeing in India to these rampaging wildfires in New Mexico and other parts of the Southwest, the planet is sending us a pretty clear message, and that is the long-dreaded climate emergency is now. And so, faced with this clear and present danger, my report argues that the United States and other nations can’t afford to ignore the possibility of expanding their current strategies for managing climate risk to include sunlight reflection. This is also known as solar climate intervention or, perhaps more popularly, solar geoengineering. It’s been the subject of a lot of interesting science fiction, including Termination Shock and The Ministry for the Future just to name a couple that have come out. It basically would entail reflecting a tiny percentage of incoming sunlight back into space to limit the heating effect of solar radiation on our greenhouse gases while humanity goes about tackling these massive and protracted challenges of decarbonization. Sunlight reflection, as you may know, has long been the third rail of U.S. climate politics, but that’s starting to change as the gravity of global warming becomes increasingly obvious. A year ago, the prestigious National Academies of Science advocated its enhanced study. And my report kind of takes things a little bit further, looking at the logic and feasibility of such intervention and what it would require for its effective international governance. That we’re even having this conversation really is a testament to the dire straits we’re in. You know, at the big Paris Conference in 2015, as you recall, the U.S. and other governments unanimously said, hey, we’re going to keep the rise in average global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius and ideally no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times, and we’re poised to blow way past those targets. And the consequences, or at least potentially, could be quite devastating. Yesterday, the World Meteorological Organization predicted that we actually have a 50/50 chance of hitting the 1.5-degree line within the next five years, which is decades ahead of what many had predicted just a few years ago. And this comes on the heels of a scary sixth round of assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. So even if we—even if we hit the pledges that were made in Glasgow, the world is on track for warming of between 2.7 to 3 degrees Celsius this century, and that is—if you put it in Fahrenheit, it starts to seem like a lot. That is 4.9 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. So the ramifications for human safety and well-being are going to be particularly dire, including in communities like yours and mine. We’re going to have more frequent, intense, and prolonged heat waves, droughts, wildfires, storms, flooding, and other calamities, and it’s already happening. The U.N. a couple weeks ago said that the frequency of what we misleadingly still call natural disasters has quadrupled since just the year 2000. And, as always, the poor will suffer the most. Even more alarming is this growing risk that the world is going to—that warming’s going to trigger abrupt tipping points in important parts of the Earth’s system, and that can include the rapid die-back of the Amazon rainforest or a shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean conveyor belt that keeps Europe temperate. So it’s easy to be scared about this future of global warming, but my report says, you know, fortunately, there may be a lifeline, albeit in an unorthodox and imperfect way. And it would involve slightly increasing a reflection of sunlight from clouds and particles in the atmosphere to reduce climate warming. Society, I argue, needs to explore this option because climate change poses a major threat now. Now, the world currently has three main strategies to manage climate risk, and I know that Rob will speak to at least a couple of them. One of them is emissions reduction, another is carbon removal, and a third is adaptation. Unfortunately, climate change is now outpacing all of these efforts. Emissions are supposed to decline by 50 percent over the next eight years to meet the 1.5 degrees target, but they’re on pace to rise by 16 percent. Direct-air capture of atmospheric carbon, whether by negative-emissions technologies or nature-based solutions like planting trees, is critical, but it could take decades for these innovations or land-use changes to go to scale. And then, finally, efforts to build resilience against warming and its impact, which no doubt you are all involved in, are essential but they’re also expensive, underfunded, and inherently limited because a lot of them will simply be overwhelmed by the interconnected climate system. In short, I argue the world confronts a high-stakes timing predicament. We know we have to do more, we know what we have to do, but we’re not doing it fast enough to prevent soaring temperatures. How much worse things get depend on how hot it gets. Given this dilemma, I argue the world can’t afford to ignore a potentially rapid climate response that could, as they say, shave the peak of global warming, keeping people safe and natural systems stable while we make the long transition to net zero. Increasing sunlight reflection to cool the climate could be accomplished in various ways. The two most promising options are based on things that already occur. One approach would be to involve dispersing aerosols in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, likely from aircraft, and this would be a safer version of the cooling effect of particles emitted by volcanic eruptions. You may recall Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in 1991. It reduced global temperatures by some estimates by half a degree to 1.1 degree Celsius over the ensuing fifteen months. Another approach would involve spraying sea salt mist from ships or ocean platforms to brighten low-lying marine clouds in what’s called the troposphere, and this would be a cleaner version of the global cooling effect that we now see from atmospheric pollution. In fact, the pollution that we have already put into the atmosphere is estimated to keep temperatures about half a degree to 1.2 degrees Celsius than they would be otherwise, and so that’s going on right now. And models suggest that this could be remarkably cost-effective. It might be done for as little as $10 billion a year, which is a tiny fraction of the estimated 275 trillion (dollars) it’s going to cost to decarbonize the global economy by 2050. So I’ll just finish up with a few remarks here. Despite its promise and precedence, the idea of sunlight reflection has been controversial, though that’s starting to change as the risks of warming intensify. There’s a lot of queasiness about playing with Earth’s thermostat. There’s worry that there are uncertain risks, and it’s true there could be unintended consequences which we need to take seriously. There’s also fear of what economists call a moral hazard; that is, that the mere prospect of this will give governments, corporations, and citizens a perceived hall pass to continue their polluting ways. I argue that these concerns really do deserve careful consideration and scrutiny. This is an untried enterprise with a risk of unintended consequences and human error. But these risks need to be assessed not alone as if we inhabited some sort of a perfect world, but alongside the known dangers, tensions, and inequities of an ongoing if unwitting experiment we’re already performing by pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The key question to ask is: Can increasing the reflection of sunlight in the atmosphere reduce the dangers posed by global warming? Unfortunately, we don’t know because we don’t have the scientific certainty about the potential efficacy and repercussions of this, and we don’t have any monitoring systems or multilateral rules of the road to govern such intentional manipulation of Earth’s climate system. And I argue that this dual vacuum is untenable because it leaves policymakers flying blind, unsure of the feasibility of this option, and unable to make informed, responsible choices. It also increases the danger—the lack of international rules in particular—of something that the National Intelligence Council has warned about, the danger that a single power could someday take matters into its own hands, launching freelance interventions with destabilizing geopolitical and economic impacts. So I basically say we have to close two gaps. To close the first knowledge gap, I recommend that the Biden administration and Congress collaborate to launch an ambitious, well-funded, transparent, and accountable research program on sunlight reflection science grounded in international cooperation. And it would build on the recommendations that were made by the National Academies, but with a lot more money. To close the second gap, I call on the United States—that’s the governance gap—I call on the U.S. and other governments to begin negotiations on a multilateral framework needed to jointly assess the feasibility, consequences, and wisdom of actually doing this, because we could decide this is a terrible idea. And also, though, importantly, to take collective decisions about any future deployment. And I argue that although, obviously, we live in a pretty complicated negotiating landscape right now, I believe that the mutual vulnerability to climate change could create some opportunities for strange bedfellows, including between the United States and China and between the United States and developing ones. As the report repeatedly emphasizes, sunlight reflection’s not a solution to climate change since it doesn’t effect emissions or eliminate atmospheric carbons. It’s more like methadone for a world weaning itself off of fossil-fuel addiction. But it’s something that we can’t afford to at least explore. You know, we have to consider all of our options, and I think it would be irresponsible not to evaluate its viability and possible consequences and at least give it—give it the science and consideration that it’s due before we dismiss it out of hand. So those are my opening remarks. Thanks. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you, Stewart. Let’s go to you, Rob, to talk about the policy implications for these kinds of climate interventions and what you think officials in states and cities should be thinking about in terms of mitigating the consequences of climate change. LEMPERT: Great. Thank you, Irina. Thanks for the introductions, and thanks for setting this up, and, as Stewart said, all that you do to—(laughs)—make these programs run. And welcome, everybody. Yeah, so this is actually a fascinating topic to engage with state and local officials on. I mean, no one is suggesting that you put sunlight reflection into your climate action plans. But there are a number of places where I think this is an important topic that does connect with what’s going on at state and local levels. I mean, so the first is that this whole consideration of sunlight reflection is really a reason to accelerate your efforts at mitigation, reducing greenhouse gases, and adaptation, you know, achieving resilience to extreme weather and climate events. You know, the only reason, as Stewart so eloquently laid out, that this is on the agenda at all is because of the challenges we face are so imminent and significant. And sunlight reflection is, at best—I mean, it can’t be a permanent solution. At best, it’s a way to shave the peak, to keep temperatures low while we make a transition to a low-carbon emitting economy. And it might also be something that we would need to turn to in some sort of emergency if one of these feedbacks—low probability, but high consequence—feedbacks actually manifests itself. You know, climate is very much a risk management challenge. And, you know, one fundamental risk management strategy or principle of risk management is to have a diverse portfolio. And so essentially, you know, what we’re doing with sunlight reflection is making our portfolio more diverse. And so we shouldn’t make it less diverse as we consider this option. A second point is that while sunlight reflection—deployment of any sunlight reflection system is definitely in the future, there are other types of climate modification which are, you know, currently on the table and currently happening. In particular, this idea of carbon dioxide removal, extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Which can create opportunities and risks at the local level, which might be something that you all might want to consider. So Stewart mentioned nature-based solutions—reforestation, managing agricultural and other natural lands in ways so that they store more carbon. And there’s a whole issue of biofuels, and the issue of direct air capture, machines that actually suck carbon out of the air. And there are examples of—and firms and technology demonstrations, market demonstrations of all of these going on around the country and around the world. And so you may, in your community—they all pose opportunities and risks. You know, for instance, direct air capture are machines which suck carbon out of the air, or biofuels. You can, in California, where I live, take dead trees and build little mini refineries and turn those into fuels, and create then carbon that you can sequester underground. And all of those create economic opportunities, but they also create various sorts of risks—risks to ecosystems, risks from storing carbon underground, which you may want to engage with how should you exploit those opportunities, manage those risks? And then the place where you may engage directly with the sunlight reflection is that—well, is the—is the notion—or, the potential for outdoor experimentation with this technology. And to date, for sunlight reflection, particularly the stratospheric—putting particles in the stratosphere to help increase the reflectivity of the Earth to reflect sunlight—has all been in effort. In laboratories and computer modeling the science may be getting to the stage where outdoor experiments may be appropriate. By and large, at this stage they’re all going to involved negligible environmental consequences. You’re releasing, you know, only a few pounds of material into the atmosphere, which will really have no environmental—noticeable environmental impact. And so it’s straightforward for these experiments to satisfy existing environmental impact laws. But many in your community, many worldwide may see such experiments as symbolically important. So there—some communities may face the question about, you know, is it appropriate to have such experiments in their locale or not? And so my own view tends to be to see this as an opportunity for public engagement, and public engagement and participation is important. You know, first experimenters may face backlash if essentially they don’t want to ask permission to conduct an experiment in people’s backyards. Backlash would be entirely avoidable. And second, and sort of the large point, is that across the board, to address the climate change, we’re going to need to build massive amounts of new infrastructure—from solar and wind machines, to power lines, to renovated buildings and so forth, different sorts of streets. Actually, there’s a question about reflecting roofs. And in order to manage climate risk, we’re going to need to build fast and build fair in equitable ways. And I think public participation is going to be an important part of that, and we need to do that better than we’ve been doing that in many places. And sunlight reflection experiments I think provide us with an interesting and unique opportunity to advance methods for getting the public engaged in these significant, serious, but really important risk management questions. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you so much. So we’re going to go to questions. There are already several typed up in the chat. So if you would like to ask a question you can either write it out or you can also click on the raise hand icon and we will call upon you. You can accept the unmute prompt and state your name and affiliation and your state, just to give us context. And, again, this is a great forum to share with us what you’re doing in your community. So we encourage you to do all of that. So I’m going to take the first just—there are several in the chat—from Liz Ellis, who’s a city councilperson in Aberdeen, Washington. I think you touched on this, Rob. Should the national building code require all roofs to be painted/made with reflective material? LEMPERT: Do you want me to jump in, or? FASKIANOS: Yeah. I think that one should go to you, mmm hmm. LEMPERT: Yeah. Yeah. I catch a little bit on the word “all.” So I’m not sure whether all roofs need to be, but I think the basic point you’re asking is an emphatic “yes.” We need to revise our building codes to take into account changing climate. There’s been some fascinating studies which look forward and look at how many places in the country building codes are based on climate data from the 1960s and ’70s. You know, support from decades ago. And the climate today is already significantly different than the climate those building codes envision and is changing fast. So the basic point is, yeah, we need to revise our building codes to be forward-looking, and so that we’re building for the climate that’s coming and not the one that we’ve had, or the one even that we’re living through today. And that will include, in many places, reflecting roofs and reflecting streets, you know, particularly in the southwest U.S., where I live. That sort of thing is going to definitely be important. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So we have a written question from Jeffrey Sayegh, who is an aid for New York Assemblyman Thomas Abinanti. This is directed to you, Stewart. You mentioned using airplanes and ships to disperse cooling agents. You stated it could cost 10 billion (dollars) a year. Can you elaborate on this price and how this price tag came about, this number? As far as I’m concerned, we are the ones setting the price. For all we know the cost could be a lot lower if it benefits everybody. PATRICK: Yeah. That’s a great question. Yes, I mean, conceivably. I mean, that’s the price tag for—I mean, the estimated price tag by Alan Robock and a number of other climate scientists who basically suggest that for under $10 billion it would be the cost for flying several dozen planes relatively continuously in the stratosphere over the course of about a year or so. And that would also include the materials that would be used to be dispersed. It could be sulfates. It could be calcites. There are a number of different materials that people have talked about. But certainly, that expenditure could be shared in a multilateral framework, which is something that I would definitely endorse. And the report goes into some detail about the importance of making this a multilateral partnership, rather than simply a sort of a unilateral U.S. effort. Partly to, you know, put the emphasis on international cooperation as opposed to something that, in a sense, is being unilaterally placed on—or, imposed on other countries. That’s why it makes—the report makes a major emphasis on the importance of reaching out, particularly to developing countries, to avoid some sort of neocolonial notion. This is if you were to do this after all the science is done, as you don’t have any neocolonial and sort of imperialist lens on this. What you want to do is basically talk to—understand the needs of developing countries which, frankly speaking, are the ones that are taking climate change hardest on the chin. FASKIANOS: Great. So just as a point of clarification from Erica Norton, who’s a city council member in Federal Way, Washington, just can you go through the tradeoffs? Reflect and stop the sunlight, but at the same time changing our energy source to solar. So how do you sequence those two things and bring them into—you know, so they’re not seemingly at odds? PATRICK: You’re saying we need to reflect at the same time—yeah. I mean, I—OK, right, yeah. No, there is a question—no I understand that. There—I mean, one of the objections to sunlight reflection is that wouldn’t it hurt, in a sense, solar power, of all the renewables, the most? There are a number of scientists that have looked at this and studied and suggested, you know, there would be a slight—there could be a slight reduction in the amount of solar power that you generated, but the overwhelming impact would be to reduce average global temperatures. And that it wouldn’t be a huge hit on solar power. So the tradeoff, as far as the scientists who have looked at it suggest, is that it would definitely be worth it. And that it wouldn’t put solar power out of business, because we’re only talking really about reflecting perhaps 1 percent of incoming solar radiation. It’s hard to imagine that that would make solar power—change the economics of solar power. FASKIANOS: Rob, do you want to comment on that as well? LEMPERT: Yeah, nothing on that. FASKIANOS: OK. So we’ll take the next question—and people should raise their hands too, because I don’t love reading all the questions. We want to hear from you. But I will. Jackson Kaspari, who is a resiliency coordinator in Dover, New Hampshire, about where I was born. (Laughs.) The largest uncertainty for impacts on global radiative forcing come from aerosol and the aerosol interactions with clouds. With incredibly complex atmospheric chemistry at play and the potential for long-range transborder regional implications, how could this be employed in a controlled fashion? He did not tackle it in his Ph.D. seminar because of the controversy. So could you see remote sensing and drones playing a large role for monitoring atmospheric— PATRICK: Again, this is—yeah, I mean, this is precisely—I mean, you know, Jackson makes a fantastic point. I mean, this is precisely—it is unbelievably complex. And, you know, DOE has some of the most powerful supercomputer capability in the world. And yet, you know, DOE does not have the mandate or resources to do sort of direct monitoring of cloud-aerosol interactions in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere. And so, you know, that’s one of the reasons why this calls for a significant budget. Now, it’s still peanuts compared to something like the defense budget, but it does envision a research program starting at $300 million a year and going up to about half a billion dollars a year by year five. But it also calls for increased investments in NASA satellite capabilities. It calls for increased investments in what’s called the Earth’s Radiation Budget Program at NOAA, which in particular is looking at sunlight and its interaction with particles in the stratosphere. And so this would have an entire suite of Earth observation systems ultimately attached to it so that we could get to some of the granularity, as they say in the military—(laughs)—of—and the details of, you know, what the dynamics would be. Because Jackson’s absolutely right. These are enormously complex systems. We are also discovering how much we are disrupting those complex systems with our current greenhouse gas policies. FASKIANOS: Rob, do you want to also add to that? LEMPERT: Yeah. Why don’t I do that, and then I can link it to the question about the small experiment that was proposed for Sweden. Yeah. As Stewart suggests—I mean, and the question suggests, I mean, the chemistry and the dynamics of the stratosphere that layer the atmosphere above the one we live in, where these particles would go, is tremendously complicated. And at some point to understand the potential and whether this technology would work or not, and how best to do it—you know, whether we would need drones to track things, et cetera—suggests we need to start—would need to start doing outdoor experiments. And the small experiment that David Keith proposed for Sweden would send a balloon up, release about two or three pounds of material—calcium carbonate—into the stratosphere. And then have little propellers and fly the balloon back through the plume to measure what was going on, and essentially see if the models that the atmospheric chemists have for predicting where that plume would go and what its properties would be, would be, in fact, what we would observe. It’s a tiny, small step towards answering the sort of question that was asked. And that experiment did not take place. And—at least my interpretation, since I had some involvement in that process—was that the experiment, the location of it—the north of Sweden has a spaceport up in the northern part of the country—that it was chosen and announced that the experiment was intended to be there on—entirely on scientific grounds, without any consideration of the people who live there, or even any discussions with the people who live there. So I think the main takeaway from that for me is that any experimental location needs to get on the list with both scientific and—considerations, and considerations of who lives there. And that no experiment ought to be, you know, announced or planned before people in potential launch sites are engaged on what they think about it, and have a chance to weigh in. PATRICK: Yeah, I agree that laying the groundwork with the communities is essential. In this case it was particularly perhaps sensitive because it was in the location of the inhabitants where all the Sami people who have often been marginalized, even in as otherwise nice Swedish political system. So I think that that, plus some environmental concerns—often exaggerated, I think, environmental and health concerns, given that, as Rob said, this small quantity that was going to be there. But I think it had some symbolic importance. And I think that that is a lesson that was learned from that experience. FASKIANOS: Great. Just I will answer one of the questions. We will be sending out after this event a link to the video and transcript so that you can obviously have a copy and share it, as well as a link to Stewart’s report. So we’re going to take the next question from Amy Cruver, who is council member from Tacoma, Washington. Actually, Pierce County Council. How much carbon dioxide is required for healthy plant production? And is the goal now to remove epigenic greenhouse gases as well as naturally occurring ones? I don’t know who wants to take that. PATRICK: Yeah, an interesting question. Yeah, I am not a—you know, I am not a botanist, or I’m not sure that I have—or a forester. So I’m not sure that I know, you know, the precise level that would be healthy. Undoubtably different species would respond differently. But the idea here is—you know, there’s no—in the global sense there’s no distinction between sort of what’s naturally occurring carbon dioxide once it gets into the atmosphere and ones that are sort of anthropogenic in nature. The idea here would not be to try to—I mean, at most it would be trying to offset the level of carbon dioxide that has been put in the atmosphere over the last two hundred years or so, since the start of the industrial revolution. And that is quite a herculean task. Actually, just removing it—just thinking of carbon dioxide removal—if you were going to try to remove—there’s one calculation we had, a report from actually a scientist who works at the University of Washington, speaking of Tacoma, your neighbors. They calculated that the amount of carbon that you’d have to remove from the atmosphere to get down to sort of preindustrial times, if it were—if it were transformed into solid black carbon, it would be the volume of Mount Rainier, basically thirty cubic miles of solid black carbon. So this is a huge enterprise that we are involved in. So that is the kind of carbon that this would have to offset. Again, decisionmakers—political decisionmakers, leaders, could decide whether or not they just want to stop the heat at 1.5 degrees Celsius. But in principle, you could reduce that heat back to preindustrial levels. But again, you have to keep on doing this until you decarbonize the global economy and reduce emissions already there, because there is—that’s why the book that I mentioned, called Termination Shock, if you were suddenly to stop doing this, you run into problems because the—suddenly you have without—if you haven’t reduced the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because if you suddenly stop doing this intervention, then you risk having a very strong spike in temperature. And you have that spike happen much less gradually that it would have occurred otherwise. So it is something you need to keep doing. That’s why this can only be a supplementary intervention, alongside carbon dioxide removal and emissions reduction. FASKIANOS: Rob, do you know the exact figures? Yeah. LEMPERT: Yeah. Yeah, well, let me weigh in on two points here. One is, you know, what is the perfect level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? And, I mean, that’s a hard question to answer. Some plants are going to do better with higher. Some are going to do better with lower. Generally, all these targets and goals are based around the idea of trying to stay close or return to something at the level of what we had before we began the industrial revolution and, in particular, the huge and very beneficial explosion of economic growth after the Second World War. There was a question I think earlier on about, well, carbon dioxide has changed levels, and temperature levels have changed, you know, over the Earth’s history. Why is it such a big deal? I mean, the—and this goes to the plant question issue—if you look back at all those wonderful, you know, pictures of dinosaurs that, you know, you and your kids have looked at, I mean, there are plants but they’re very different from the ones we had now. So the Earth has existed in different states than the one we have now, but the transition between them have often been pretty abrupt. We’ve had several mass extinctions in the history of the Earth, many of them associated with big temperature changes and big changes in carbon dioxide. And those things actually happened at a much slower pace than we’re currently changing the landmass—or, the atmosphere. And, you know, had significant disruptions. Things we would not want to live through. So basically, you know, trying to keep the atmosphere roughly the composition it was before we started these large-scale changes to it are—is the goal. On this, you know, scale of Mount Rainer point, I mean, that’s one way to look at it, which suggests how big it is. But another way to look at it is to make a significant dent in the current CO2 levels and bring them back down towards what they were before the industrial revolution, it also would take roughly the same amount of carbon removal technology and sucking through air at roughly the same magnitude of all the car radiators of all the cars we’ve put on Earth. So it’s a massive endeavor, but not different than the massive endeavor that we’re already engaged in to change the Earth’s atmosphere for beneficial purposes. So humankind is already changing the atmosphere at a massive scale. And what we’re talking about here is trying to engineer that intervention to be less disruptive to the climate. PATRICK: Yeah. Can I also just say, there was a question in the comment box which was basically saying, look, during the last, you know, ten thousand years there’s been a lot of—there’s been some significant swings in temperature. You know, if you look, though, at the period of the Holocene, which is the current geologic era we’re in, although some people say we’re now in the Anthropocene. But over the last twelve thousand years, you really don’t see a prolonged variation over basically 1 degree Celsius or 1 degree—minus-1 degree Celsius from where we have been. And then you start to see this tremendous spike over the last—the last two hundred years, particularly over the last fifty years or so. And the other thing is that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is quite remarkable. I mean, excuse me, but not just in the atmosphere, but also in the oceans. The oceans are now 30 percent more acidic than they were two hundred years ago. And that is having a devasting impact on aquatic life and marine food chains. Now, obviously, sunlight reflection doesn’t do anything about that, which is another reason why it can only be a complementary strategy, because it doesn’t solve that problem. FASKIANOS: Suds Jain had written a question, which was answered, but he also indicates that he works with the University of Washington on the MSB (sic; MCB) project. So I’m just—is that the same project that you’re referencing, Stewart? PATRICK: Yeah, MCB, marine cloud brightening. Yeah, it’s a really—I am familiar. I know there’s a number of people who work there. But I’m familiar with Sarah Doherty, who was on our advisory board. We had a tremendous advisory committee. But she and her colleagues are investigating this question of marine cloud brightening and actually experimenting with—you know, even developing prototypes of nozzles that you would use to sort of loft sea salt particles, just sort of benign sea salt particles, into the troposphere, but only even a few hundred feet. And then, you know, boundary layer convection will take the up and into the clouds. And they’re—I believe they’re planning—or, the idea is that sometime in either late this year or in 2023 there would be some at least trials over the ocean. There have already been some trials, I believe, off the Great Barrier Reef to try to use—to try to create local cooling. Because, of course, as you know, coral bleaching is a huge problem on the GBR. FASKIANOS: Great. So, Suds, if you want to raise your hand to elaborate on your project, that would be fine. I also want to just point out, from Jeffery Sayegh in New York state, we give tax rebates to homes to implement solar energy. The problem with these rebates is that they do not cover the cost of a battery, so when there’s a blackout solar’s not any use if you don’t have a battery. There’s currently zero federal assistance towards battery powered solar homes. The average family cannot afford this, and most refuse to switch over from natural gas to solar power. So that’s just a comment there. I want to go next to Brian Beck, council member in Denton, Texas. Just stating that the atmospheric reflectivity are global community efforts. What is the role of municipalities in this sort of response? So connecting it to what people should be thinking about in their communities. Rob, I’m going to throw that one to you. LEMPERT: Yeah. Yeah. So I think, you know, proceeding with your climate action plans, that include adaptation and mitigation, you might consider including some type of carbon removal. You know, in particular based on nature-based solutions, but perhaps becoming engaged with some of the demonstration projects with carbon capture and storage, particularly if you have geological formations where carbon storage might be—might be an option. And the—and then the connection with the sunlight reflection is a little bit less—you know, less direct. But you may want to consider, you know, your state’s view on what—on experimentation. If there are—if there were interest in open-air experiments in your state or city, what would be the conditions under which that would take place? What sort of public participation, what sort of other conditions would you like to see for that to take place? FASKIANOS: Mmm hmm. OK. I’m going to go next to George Tyler, trustee in Essex Town, Vermont. Do the proposed sunlight reduction strategies reduce all wavelengths and frequencies of incurring—I’m sorry—of incoming UV radiation across the board? Or are certain wavelengths and frequencies affected more than others? Stewart, is that a question for you? I think—is Stewart frozen? I think Stewart’s frozen. He’s frozen! (Laughs.) OK. So, Rob— PATRICK: Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: Yes, Stewart. Go ahead. No, I think you’re going to have to take it. PATRICK: How about this? LEMPERT: OK. FASKIANOS: Wow, you cloned yourself. We have the fixed Stewart and the—on a different device Stewart. (Laughs.) PATRICK: What’s the question? FASKIANOS: So the question was—let me just pull it back up because I marked it as—oh. Do the proposed sunlight reduction strategies reduce all wavelengths and frequencies of incoming UV radiation across the board? Or are certain wavelengths and frequencies affected more than others? PATRICK: I believe that they’re reduced across the board, but I would need to check on that. Do you— FASKIANOS: Rob? LEMPERT: Yeah. My answer is the same, yeah. I mean, I—most particles, you know, have absorption spectrums and, you know, work differentially across different frequencies. But I don’t—I actually don’t know how flat or how—you know, I don’t know the answer to that question. It’s actually pretty googleable. Let me try to check while we’re talking. FASKIANOS: OK. Erica Norton from Federal Way, Washington has a couple of questions about—and I know you addressed her—the first question, Stewart. But we are at a solar minimum and in the coolest recorded warm period in 10,000 years. What effect will reducing the sunlight have on farming and food production? And the corollary to that, since trees and foliage derive their sustenance from carbon and sunlight, what will happen to the trees and foliage if they do not have carbon and sunlight with which to feed? PATRICK: Yeah. Again, a number of climate scientists have looked at both of those questions. And there just—in terms of food production, that does not seem to be a—does not seem to have a huge impact. The impact—the potential impact there, and this is the caveat, is that there could be regional differences in precipitation patterns. This sunlight itself—the reduction in sunlight itself could, at the very margin, have some—you know, some impact—(audio break)—productivity. But it’s more the question of—because if you do this, you’re not returning the climate to its preindustrial situation. You’re basically reducing the heat in the atmosphere, but what are the ramifications of that for precipitation in different areas? And so it’s possible—and this is what we have to find out with more science. It’s possible that there will be winners and losers in this, at least—at least modest winners and losers. And there are a few more worrisome potentialities, although it’s controversial. One of them is that sunlight reflection could have perturbations on the Indian Ocean monsoons. And if that were the case, there could be rather dramatic consequences for Indian agriculture. It’s been something that Indian scientists have talked about and have suggested we need more research for it. But I don’t—at least what I’ve seen does not—it is not huge ramifications for agricultural productivity. LEMPERT: As a simple rule of thumb, climate change is about water. Because water carries most of the energy in the atmosphere. And so a small change in carbon dioxide, its biggest effects on agriculture, as Stewart was saying, is where the water goes. So, you know, whether you’re going to have more or less precipitation, what season it comes in, whether you have floods, whether you have drought, and the effects of—the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the effects of change in the reflectivity of the Earth, the big effects on agriculture are, by and large, going to be where the water goes. And that’s the thing that we don’t understand very well. FASKIANOS: Great. Going to Tony Rogers, who’s an attorney in La Paz County, Arizona. Are the so-called chemtrails that we’ve been seeing in the sky over the past several years really solar reflection experiments already underway? LEMPERT: Yeah, I can answer that. No. There is a lot of—there have been a lot of very sort of rich—there’s a rich tradition of looking at chemtrails as some sort of experiment either being undertaken by the government or by some malevolent actors or, conceivably, even, you know, by some international authority like the United Nations. The chemtrails—at least the so-called chemtrails, as I understand them, are basically, you know, similarly vapor trails that are left behind by aircraft. There may be other sort of naturally occurring phenomenon, like cirrus clouds, et cetera, that make something look like it’s been a trail left behind. But the question does raise an interesting point, which is how do we know if somebody’s actually started doing this? And from what I understand, the—particularly in the wake of the National Intelligence Council’s report last fall that some countries could start to do this—there’s been a certain amount of increased attention, shall we say, at different parts of the U.S. government about how one could actually monitor whether or not this was going on, and could we actually tell if there was a clandestine program, say, I don’t know, not to pick on United Arab Emirates or India or China or some other country. But how would we know whether or not they’d actually launched something? And there’s—I think the answers are mixed as to whether or not we could, through our current observational apparatus—be able to ascertain that question. And you could imagine that this sort of issue and the controversy surrounding it could really disrupt international politics. You could even imagine some countries threatening to do this as a form of blackmail, either to get other countries to give them aid or to, you know, enhance their own emissions efforts—emissions reductions efforts. FASKIANOS: There’s one more question before we wrap up, if anybody wants to raise their hand or write in another question. But how can we go about and start implementing this technology and installing them on ships, cruise ships, airplanes, et cetera? PATRICK: That’s really interesting. I mean, there are—there are proposals right now to put—it’s less to spread—(audio break)—or other material in the stratosphere, but more to sort of put monitoring equipment and analysis equipment on some airliners, or freight airlines, that you could actually—while the plane was up there, they could actually be measuring the state of the stratosphere, which would seem to kind of make sense, right, with the atmosphere. With respect to, you know, the—I think that any—at least the planes for deployment of this sort of thing, if you didn’t do it by balloons, which is one possibility. Another way you could even use sort of the equivalent of artillery shells, in a sense, to sort of place some of this material up in the—up in the atmosphere. But the planes would be sort of specially modified, relatively higher altitude airplanes, to go about this. Yeah. And it’s—you know, the same—the same thing has been suggested for cruise ships and other sort of oceangoing vessels, which presumably could serve also as platforms for actually deploying some of this. Already, as I mentioned, you know, pollution creates a certain amount of brightness in clouds. And that includes low-lying marine clouds. We’ve talked about chemtrails before, but—which, you know, the vapor trails basically from airlines. You get a similar thing if you look at, from down at the ocean front, satellites. You can see so-called ship tracks. And that’s basically ship pollution that has gone up into the air. And it actually brightens marine clouds. And so those things are already going on. But you could imagine trying to piggyback on some of the existing sort of merchant fleets that we have around the world, to try to do this. I haven’t seen much written about that, but they have talked about platforms and ships as being a place that—a way that you could actually do this. FASKIANOS: Great. So I’m going to take the final question from Renee Suwaneski, who’s from Bartlett Village, Illinois. And if you could, you know, react to her question and also any parting thoughts, because we are coming to the end of our time. So we’ll first go to you Stewart, and then to Rob. So, Stewart, you mentioned winners and losers when answering the question of food shortages. How would those winners and losers be determined? And, you know, if you could tack onto that any closing thoughts you would like to leave us with. PATRICK: Yeah. No, I mean, it’s a huge issue because, you know, one could imagine losers—and this would be quite politically—geopolitically sensitive. You can imagine losers being Russia, right? It’s been interesting, we tend to think of the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and its Western partners on the one hand and increasing and maybe even a Cold War against the sort of two big authoritarian players. But what’s interesting with respect to climate change is that, you know, the Chinese are very worried about water security. And so they would conceivably be winners if they had a little bit less heat to worry about. Whereas, in Russia there’s been much less—they’re kind of much more easy come easy go when it comes to climate change because, you know, their wheat belt is moving north in Siberia at quite a clip. And so they may see this—and, you know, obviously the northern sea route between Europe and Asia. So they may see this as a way to be winners. You know, determining all of these things is really going to have to depend on an incredible, much more detailed, sort of map of vulnerabilities and benefits. And that probably would have—there would have to be some international regime eventually to have some level of compensation. The last point I’ll just make with respect to just a general point, which is that I do want to reiterate that this is not a solution to climate change. I also want to reiterate that I’m not advocating for its deployment, just its—at this stage—just its study. Whatever happens, it’s very important that we think about how these different—these four arrows in our so-called quiver of managing climate risk, actually relate to one another and actually complement and reinforce one another, rather than having one being seen as the silver bullet. Because, as Rob mentioned, one of the priorities with respect to managing your portfolio, stock or otherwise, is to diversify. FASKIANOS: Rob, over to you. LEMPERT: Yeah. No, very interesting question. And I think you have to separate into can we—how well can we predict who the winners and losers might be, and then how, well, if we ever did this sunlight reflection and it, in fact, created winners and losers, could we tell? And so on that second question, the science of what’s called attribution, being able to attribute particular storms, droughts, or heat waves to the effects of climate change has gotten much, much better in the last couple of years, which I think will have a lot of implications across the board. But in this particular one, we probably would be able to tell—you know, have a pretty good ability to tell if there was a major climate intervention and there was, say, a big drought or a lack of monsoon in a particular place. We’d probably be able to do a pretty good job of attributing it to an action that some country or, you know, entity had taken. And then, as Stewart said, that that would work a lot better if there were ways to think about compensation beforehand, as opposed to after the fact. Predicting what the effects of a climate intervention might be is—you know, we’re a long, long way from that. And part of the research agenda that, you know, Stewart’s outlined would be to improve our ability to do that. And, yeah, as parting thoughts, just to thank everybody for their interest and just to, again, reiterate that, you know, addressing climate change, there is no silver bullet and it’s really something where we need to work across the board on a diverse portfolio of solutions, and ones that are, you know, customized for each particular location and state and locality. And, yeah. Thanks, all. FASKIANOS: So I’m going—I’m going to ask one last question from Amy Cruver, because I think it is important. What effect does the war in Ukraine—is it having on our efforts to go carbon neutral or net zero? Like, in terms of how much is this going to set us back, the war and what’s happening there? Not fair to end on this, but I just thought if you could give a quick prediction. PATRICK: Yeah, I just—I think it’s set it back quite significantly, at least in the medium-term—short and medium-term, because it’s put an emphasis on, you know, energy security. And I think that there’s a long-term way of thinking about energy security, which is going really more towards the renewables. But I think that at least in the short term it’s definitely put the emphasis on, you know, fossil fuel extraction. And even removal of things like gas taxes and things like that at the pump. But Rob may have other views. LEMPERT: Yeah, no, no, I agree with that. I mean, it also has highlighted the—some of the dangers of dependence on fossil fuels. And so I would just offer that, you know, as sort of a general guideline, perhaps the best way to respond to this crisis is trying to, you know, enhance use and production of current fossil fuel assets, but direct investments—any new investments towards other types of energy might, in the long term, be a productive way to respond to the crisis. FASKIANOS: There’s a theme here. Diversity. (Laughs.) Diversify and try to put—use as many tools as possible at our disposal to come into play. Well, thank you both. This was really, really great. We really appreciate your being with us, to you, Stewart, for authoring this report. Again, you all should, if you haven’t already, take a look at it. We will send out a link to the recording and transcript. You can follow Stewart Patrick on Twitter at @stewartpatrick and Rob Lempert at @robertlempert. So go there. You can also sign up for Stewart’s blog on CFR.org, The Internationalist. So I encourage you to do that. And as always, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis on these issues, and more. And do email us, [email protected], to let us know how we can support the work that you are doing in your communities. We appreciate all your efforts. Hope you all stay safe and well. And we look forward to having you join us for the next webinar. So take care. LEMPERT: Thanks, all. PATRICK: Thanks. (END)
  • Cybersecurity
    The Perils and Promise of America’s Older Cyber Regulatory Regime
    Outdated digital policy in the United States has long been cited as a point of failure. Hacking laws need updating, but broad protections and better implementation of the law can improve U.S. cybersecurity policy.
  • Democracy
    Democracy and Voting Rights
    Play
    Carol Anderson, Charles Howard Candler professor of African American studies at Emory University, and Michael Li, senior counsel at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, discuss race, equity, and legislative redistricting and their implications for voting rights and democracy in the United States. TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach at CFR. We are delighted to have participants from forty U.S. states and territories with us for this on-the-record discussion. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Officials Initiative we serve as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. This webinar is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Foundation Project on the Future of Democracy, which is aiming to identify threats to the health of democracies around the globe and to recommend steps that policymakers, business leaders, and citizens can take to strengthen democratic norms and values, and this is an important topic. We are delighted to have Dr. Carol Anderson and Mr. Michael Li with us today. We’ve shared their bios with you so I’m just going to give you a few highlights. Carol Anderson is the Charles Howard Candler Professor and Chair of African American Studies at Emory University. She is an expert on voting rights, public policy, race, justice, and equality and has served on working groups at Stanford Center for Applied Science and Behavioral Studies, the Aspen Institute, and the United Nations. She is the author of four books, including One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying Our Democracy, and has been featured in several documentaries on voting rights, including All In, The Fight for Democracy, Suppressed 2020, and After Selma. Michael Li is senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program at NYU School of Law. Mr. Li is a redistricting and election law expert and a regular writer and commentator on these topics for several news outlets. He’s a native of Texas and previously served as the executive director of Be One Texas, which oversaw strategic and targeted investments in nonprofit organizations working to increase voter participation and engagement in historically disadvantaged African American and Hispanic communities in Texas. So we’re really excited to have both of you with us today to talk about voting rights. So I’m going to turn, first, to you, Carol, to really set the scene for us. Give us a historical overview of legislative redistricting at the state level and what this has meant and means for individual voting rights and democracy in the United States. ANDERSON: Thank you so much, Irina, and thank you so much, all of you, for being here, and so what I’m going to do is to give that historical background to disfranchisement because that’s what we’re talking about here when we’re talking about the battles over redistricting, and that background is—we call it Jim Crow 2.0, and lots of folks flinch at that because they’re, like, this isn’t Jim Crow, because they think of it in terms of the physical violence. But there’s the bureaucratic violence that was waged during the era of Jim Crow, that bureaucratic violence of the laws and the Supreme Court decisions that eviscerated millions of American citizens’ right to vote, and it took seven decades living under that Jim Crow regime before America got close to being a vibrant democracy with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I’m here to say we don’t have another seven decades to fight this battle again. What I mean by bureaucratic violence is I’m going to go back to the Mississippi Plan of 1890. In that Mississippi Plan, it emerged out of a growing threat of when you had African Americans and poor Whites coming together in an alliance, voting for politicians, voting for policymakers who resonated with the ideas of poor people, and so the leadership in Mississippi looked at that and said, oh, we’ve got to stop this. We’ve got to break this thing up, and how we’re going to do it we’re going to say we’re cleaning up elections. We’re going to try to re-instill Americans’ faith in our democracy by getting rid of all of this massive rampant voter fraud that is happening in our polls. Now, they knew that that wasn’t happening. They had election fraud happening where you had politicians stuffing the ballot box but you didn’t have individual voter fraud. But aligning the case with voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud, gave it a cachet that made this effort seem legitimate. And what they also knew is that they had to move around the Fifteenth Amendment that said the state shall not abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. So what they did was to use the legacies of slavery and make the legacies of slavery the access point to the ballot box, and they made it all seem legitimate and that’s what we need to understand about the way that this works. And so you don’t write a law saying, we don’t want Black folks to vote. But what you do is you say, ah, we believe that if you’re going to have this democracy you should be willing to pay a small fee—a poll tax—in order to be able to vote. Now, what that small fee built on was the legacy of slavery where you had centuries of unpaid labor, followed by the Black Codes after the Civil War, followed by sharecropping. So that small fee amounted to 2 (percent) to 6 percent of a Mississippi farm family’s annual income in order to be able to vote. That’s powerful. Then you had the literacy test that also seemed legitimate but it wasn’t, and what you had there was building on the legacy of enforced illiteracy, the legacy of enforced uneducation, miseducation, for African Americans in order to make that literacy test seem viable and logical and reasonable and, of course, it wasn’t. There were several other components in this Mississippi Plan. The result was that it was so effective that you had the U.S. Supreme Court saying that the poll tax and the literacy test did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because everybody had to pay and everybody had to read, and the import of that was that the other states ran with it. By the time the U.S. is fighting in World War II only 3 percent of age-eligible African Americans were registered to vote in the South. Only 3 percent. In the 1942 midterm, we had a voter turnout rate of 7 percent in the poll tax states in the South—a 7 percent voter turnout rate for a federal elections. In the 1944 presidential election, we had a voter turnout rate in the poll tax states in the South of 14 percent, juxtaposed to a 62 percent nationwide average. This is an authoritarian regime. So when we say—when we’re baptized in the element of American exceptionalism that that kind of authoritarianism could not happen here, it already has. It already has and it did enormous damage. That is why you have the power of the civil rights movement to break open this authoritarianism and to provide real democracy on American soil. Then we had the Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013 that gutted the Voting Rights Act, and so now we have a new wave of laws that are about disenfranchising that use the legacy of slavery and of Jim Crow to do that work. We have poll closures, which built on redlining and racial segregation so that where African Americans live—when you close the polls where they live it makes it much harder to get to the polling stations to vote. And we have gerrymandering, and I’m going to leave us with Tom Hofeller’s words. Tom Hofeller was one of the key mapmakers for the Republicans and he said—as he used Texas as his baseline case, he said, if we add the citizenship question to the U.S. Census what that means is that we can draw the maps is such a way that we can ensure the dominance of the Republicans and of non-Hispanic Whites for the next decade. And so you see the way that something as seemingly esoteric and as race neutral as citizenship in fact is very racially implicated in the ways that this democracy is being undermined. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Carol. So, Michael, over to you to talk about the most recent redistricting cycle and the 2020 Census data and what this all means, as well as the recent Supreme Court rulings challenging provisions in the Voting Rights Act. LI: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much, Irina, and thank you, Carol. It’s an honor to be here with all of you. I’m going to talk a little bit about what has been going on for the last year or so—it is continuing—which is the redrawing of maps at every level of government, which is something that we do every ten years after the Census, and the main purpose of redrawing maps is, of course, to make sure that districts are equally populated. That’s a requirement of the Constitution and it’s a good thing to do. It’s also an opportunity for states to make sure that they’re complying with all other requirements of laws, including the Voting Rights Act. But, unfortunately, for much of our history it’s also been an opportunity for shenanigans, for people to put their thumb on the scale and to inflect how elections come out, and, of course, this being America there’s oftentimes a racial dimension to this, particularly in the South but not limited to the South. And the cycle, in a lot of ways, is a very unusual one. It’s a very hard one. The Census data, of course, came out later than expected. Then there was COVID, and so it’s really been a rush to get this done. And, you know, the result has been a cycle that has been challenging but also is taking place, you know, in a very different—in a restrictive—a very different legal landscape, and we’re starting to see how that plays out. So there is good news and there’s bad news, and I’m going to give you the good, bad, and ugly, and, of course, to talk about redistricting you, ultimately, do need some visuals because it, ultimately, is about, you know—like, it’s hard to talk about maps in the abstract. So I’m going to use a few visuals and, hopefully, that you can see all that. Irina will let me know if, somehow, you don’t. But let me just start with the lay of the land and a little bit about the Census. You know, the U.S. grew last decade but it actually grew really slowly—in fact, the slowest it’s grown since the Great Depression. Only in the 1930s did the country grow slower than it did last decade, and that’s a trend that’s actually expected to continue over the next few decades. You know, the country’s growth is slowing and many parts of the country, actually, are aging quite rapidly. But, of course, the country’s growth is not even. A handful of states accounted for almost all of the country’s population growth and, as you can see, Texas and a number of Southern states, particularly Florida, are really powering much of the growth in huge ways and so the country is shifting now to becoming a more Southern country. You know, about 40 percent of the population of the country now lives in the South. It started the civil rights movement. It was only about 30 percent, and that’s only going to grow as the demographic curve continues over the next few years. The country also, of course, has gotten more diverse and this got a lot of attention at the time the Census data came out. Now, some of that increased diversity is because more people are identifying as multiracial but it’s also because, you know, the White population is aging and it’s, really, the people of color who are powering the country’s growth and, particularly, Latinos but also very strong growth in the Asian and also the Black population. And so, you know, this is a trend that is playing out, and it’s especially playing out in the states of the South that are the fastest growing. Texas, you saw, was the fastest-growing state in the country. Ninety-five percent of Texas’ population growth was non-White last decade. So this cycle who drew the maps? In our country it’s still—largely, it is a political thing that happens. And so in most places, Republicans and Democrats drew maps. The result—well, let’s talk about the results. So four trends, very quickly. Maps are still widely skewed—wildly skewed. The states in yellow we analyzed those had fair maps. The states in light pink and light blue the maps are slightly skewed. They probably could be fixed with relatively small changes. The states in darker red or dark blue, in both Democratic and Republican states, you know, had very skewed maps, and you can see, again, a lot of the states are in the South. Another—but, you know, sometimes people think about gerrymandering and redistricting as being grabbing seats of the other party, right, you know, like, you know, taking out Democratic incumbents if you’re a Republican, you know, vice versa if you’re a Democrat. That, certainly, occurred. But one of the big changes in this decade is that people are drawing fortress districts and so there will be a lot fewer competitive seats, and this is the example of Texas. You can see the orange bar is the number—on the left the number of super Trump districts in Texas. Eleven before redistricting. Afterwards, it became twenty-one. So and Republicans only have twenty-four seats in Texas. So twenty-one out of the twenty-four seats in Texas are really super, super, super Trump districts. Democrats did it a little bit differently. Like, in New York, they didn’t create super Biden districts. They kind of did take out Republican incumbents. But, you know, as a result, there are a bunch of districts that Democrats drew that are more than a little bit good Biden districts but not super Biden districts and that could, perhaps, result in a little bit more vulnerability for Democrats in the near term nationwide. That’s a look at nationwide. But, you know, a big part of the story is that communities of color are in the sights of map drawers and what we’ve seen around the country is an aggressive dismantling of minority opportunity districts, both traditional districts—you know, majority minority districts—but also these emerging very diverse suburban districts in places like Fort Bend County, Texas, which, you know, there’s—it’s a district that no longer has a racial majority or even a racial plurality. But that gets dismantled in redistricting because communities of color were just about on the verge of electing—coming together in a coalition and electing a candidate and that gets dismantled in redistricting by taking some people of color out of the district and putting them in districts in Houston next door and backfilling them with rural White voters. And, you know, you see that around the country so there really is a wholesale attack on communities of color. And in part, you know, I think you’re seeing that because the Supreme Court has said that partisan gerrymandering claims can’t be brought in federal court. That’s opened up a huge loophole in a place like the South where party and race oftentimes align, where people can now just simply say, oh, well, we’re discriminating against Democrats and they happen to be Black, Latino, and Asian, but we weren’t discriminating against them on their basis of their race. Another trend is the battle for the suburbs and, you know, this cycle Republicans have really shown that they’re very afraid of the suburbs because the suburbs, in part, have gotten really more diverse, but there also have been political shifts in the suburbs. Interesting fact is that most people of color in the country’s metro areas now live in the suburbs, not in the cities. That’s something that’s new. So this is Denton County, just north of Dallas—the suburban county of Dallas. Historically, it’s been in the green district, which stretches a little bit down south into Tarrant County close to Fort Worth. But you can see in redistricting what the Republicans did is they took parts of suburban—that county and put it in a district—a blue district that stretches all the way to the Texas Panhandle, which, again, sort of, like, you know, many of the key battles that I mentioned in Fort Bend County where a diverse multiracial district was dismantled the suburbs, really, have been the battleground this cycle. Let’s talk briefly about litigation. You know, I think that Republicans a lot are banking on the fact the courts are more conservative and that they may dismantle what remains of the Voting Rights Act. There is a key case that will be heard in October at the Supreme Court regarding whether Alabama has an obligation to create a second Black-majority district. Right now it only has one, the light blue district on the left. But the plaintiffs in the case have said that you could easily create a second one, the yellow district in each of these four maps. But the Supreme Court has taken that case to see whether—because Alabama has appealed it and the real question that Alabama is raising is, like, whether if you’re considering race at all. The simple fact of considering race is unconstitutional and there’s a lot of signs that the Supreme Court may be in a mode that we should be a colorblind society. You know, at the same time—the same month the Supreme Court will hear the Alabama redistricting case it’ll hear the affirmative action cases. So I think this is—next term it’s going to be a big term about when you can use race in American society. And, lastly, I think, you know, the good news—I said there was good news—is that you are seeing state courts step in more to police redistricting abuses. But that’s only act two of the play. You know, there are, increasingly, battles over state supreme courts. You know, I think state supreme court elections in 2022 are going to be hotly contested. There also are efforts or rumors of efforts to impeach justices who rule badly in redistricting cases or voting rights cases—quote/unquote, “badly.” And so, really, I think the next battle in a lot of ways will be over the state courts, which have been a savior in a lot of ways, in key ways, because the federal courts and federal law has gotten so much worse. But now, I think, people are increasingly coming after state courts. And with that, I will stop and stop sharing my screen. Be happy to turn to the Q&A. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you very much for that overview. Let’s go now to all of you for your questions and comments. You can either click on the raised hand icon and I will recognize you. If you unmute yourself and then tell us who you are that would be great. Or you can also write your question in the Q&A box, and if you do that please do include your affiliation. Again, it will be a help with the questions. And don’t be shy because we have—they were very thorough presentations but I’m sure that there are questions that can be asked. So as we wait, I just want to make sure—let’s see here. So in terms of—I will ask the first question while we wait for more. What are the alternatives to state legislators drawing their own maps? What processes ensure more equitable representations across racial and partisan lines? And I don’t know who wants to start. LI: I think that that’s a great question. You know, a number of states have adopted reforms and, you know, the good news is that, you know, American democracy is the lab—you know, to use Justice Brandeis’ term, you know, laboratories of democracy, and we’ve gotten to see some things that work and some things that don’t work as well. And one thing that has worked really well is a truly independent commission, and states like California and Michigan, Arizona, and Colorado have what we consider very independent commissions. There’s an independent selection process. There are lots of strong conflict of interest rules about who gets to serve as a commissioner, and commissions—you know, in multiple decades now have drawn maps that, you know, well, maybe you could quibble about them not being perfect and you can quibble whether they get, like, a, you know, a B, a B+, an A. You know, they don’t produce F maps, and they do much better both in terms of racial and partisan fairness. Michigan is a great example. Michigan—in 2011, Republicans drew the map. You know, both the legislative maps and the congressional map were considered really aggressive gerrymanders. The commission undid those gerrymanders and produced maps that are very fair from a partisan perspective by every objective metric, and then also, you know, do very good in terms of representing, you know, Michigan’s very diverse communities and, you know, that’s—and likewise in California. You know, California became much more diverse over the course of the last decade. The commission drew maps that increased the number of Latino and Asian opportunities in line with the increase in population. That’s in stark contrast to Texas, which also grew very diverse but, you know, in Texas, there were not only no new minority opportunities created, the state actually goes backwards and makes some districts much harder for minority-preferred candidates to win. And so, you know, there is a model for reform and, you know, at least at the congressional level that could be done by Congress and not just the states. You know, Congress could require the use of independent commissions. You know, that sort of has stalled out in Congress but, you know, a future Congress might take that up. And so, you know, there are, you know, a lot of things that you can do. FASKIANOS: Thank you. All right. So, the first written question from Mike Green, who’s a city council member in West Columbia, South Carolina. How does voter ID affect voting rights and is this something that is necessary, the voter ID? This is, you know, is the subject of a lot of debate here about whether or not people should be required to show ID. ANDERSON: I’ll take that one. FASKIANOS: Yes. That’s for you Carol. (Laughter.) ANDERSON: Yes. Voter ID is like the way that the poll tax and the literacy tests were where it sounds reasonable, but once you pull back the veil you see that it isn’t. One is voter ID is predicated on the lie of massive rampant voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud. But when you look you don’t see massive rampant voter fraud. Justin Levitt, a law professor out of California, did a study from 2000 to 2014. Out of 1 billion votes cast in the U.S. there were thirty-one cases of voter impersonation fraud. Thirty-one out of 1 billion. That becomes the foundation for the lie of voter fraud, voter fraud, and why we need voter ID. The way that the states have done it is that it plays to a middle class norm. Everybody’s got an ID. You’ve got to have an ID to get on a plane. You’ve got to have an ID to go to the bank. How hard is it to have an ID? And so you get this kind of—the same way with the poll tax. If you really believed in democracy you would pay this small fee. If you really believed in democracy you would get up and go get an ID. The thing is the way that these states have written the voter ID laws is that they are racially distinctive. They deal with the racial disparities in access to different types of IDs. And so the Help America Vote Act had a large range of IDs that could be used. When the states got a hold of this and started with Indiana, really, and then Georgia, and then it just took off after Shelby County v. Holder, they said government-issued photo ID but not all government-issued photo IDs. So Alabama said your public housing ID doesn’t count as a government-issued photo ID. Seventy-one percent of those who had—who were in public housing in Alabama were African American and for many, the Legal Defense Fund found, it was the only government-issued photo ID that they had. Then the governor shut down the Department of Motor Vehicles in the Black Belt counties, making it doubly difficult for those who didn’t have a car to be able to go fifty miles to go get a driver’s license in the next county in order to be able to vote. And so what you see with the deployment of voter ID is, one, it’s predicated on a lie and then, two, the way that it has been designed and implemented has strong racial biases where you have politicians, just like with gerrymandering, being able to carve out and choose their own electorate based on the types of IDs that are deemed acceptable to access the ballot box. So what Texas did was it said government-issued photo ID but your student ID from a state university doesn’t count but your concealed weapon card does. Fifty percent of those in state universities and colleges in Texas are people of color. Eighty percent of those who have the concealed weapon card are White. This is how you can carve out your electorate by carving out the types of IDs. The thing is so nefarious but it’s being read as so logical that it’s doing damage. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let’s go to a raised hand from Penny Young, town council member in New Canaan, Connecticut, I believe. Q: Yes. Thank you. I was just sitting listening to this response and I cannot tell you how it has raised my blood pressure because we have been dealing with this issue of photo IDs and it seems like there’s always a reason why we can’t come up with a solution, as opposed to all of us wanting to have a solution and coming together with a colorblind, genderblind, whatever, you know, ABC attachment you want to put to someone blind solution to a problem. So why don’t we talk about solutions as opposed to undermining whatever is being discussed? I mean, I, frankly, am—every time I turn around it is more, more, more discussion about separation and division in our country than it is all of us looking together for solutions for unity. LI: Well, I can make a couple of comments on that. I mean, I do think, like, on voter ID there isn’t an inherent problem with requiring people to identify themselves in some way. The problem is requiring them to identify themselves in ways that, like, you know, if they don’t have the IDs, right, and a court in North Carolina, for example, found that the legislature acted with surgical precision to carve out exactly—and those are the words the court used, surgical precision—exactly IDs that Black people, in particular, were less likely to have and to include the IDs that, you know, other people—White people—were likely to have. And so, you know, many countries do have some kind of ID requirement. Canada has an ID requirement but the list—there are, basically, forty-five different types of IDs that you can show in Canada. And, really, the idea is that, you know, you have to have some kind of—something that you would unlikely not have if you were not the person in question. And so, you know, like, you can show, for example, you know, a lease, you know, a health card, you know, any number of documents. A utility bill is a prime example, right. You know, you’re not likely to—if I just were—if I were to try to go to someplace and impersonate Carol I probably would not have Carol’s utility bill. That would take a lot of work for me to go impersonate Carol by getting her utility bill and then going to pretend that I was her. And so, you know, there are lots of common sense things that you could probably do. The problem is that, you know, I don’t think that the people who are advocating IDs oftentimes are acting in good faith. FASKIANOS: Carol, do you want to weigh in? ANDERSON: Yes. And so the element of the problem that we’re trying to solve, what problem are we trying to solve with these IDs? Because these IDs are cast as solving the problem of massive rampant voter fraud. We are not able to document massive rampant voter fraud and so then we get the element of trying to clean up corruption at the ballot box, and then we get the legislatures writing these ID laws that, as Michael said, are using surgical precision in order to knock certain people out. And so the divisiveness that you find so appalling, I do, too. I find the divisiveness that—of denying American citizens the right to vote based on what type of ID that they have so that in North Dakota the legislature wrote a law for voter ID saying you must have a physical address on your ID to vote, knowing good and doggone well that 61 percent of their indigenous population lived on reservations that did not have a physical address. So the only reason why you write that into the law is that you know that 61 percent of your indigenous population does not have a physical address. That’s what’s divisive. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Veronica Paiz, who is a council person in Harbor Woods, Michigan, and a state representative candidate in Michigan: Though the maps seem “fair,” quote/unquote, regarding population, the districts are drawn make it difficult to address specific concerns. Her district is part urban Detroit and part suburban, Tourism Lake in two counties, different concerns, different needs. Michigan Republicans tried to get thirty-nine pieces of anti-voting legislation through the house last year. So this is not a question, but could you address these kinds of situations? LI: Yeah. I mean, I do think, like, drawing the districts in Michigan and the Detroit area was complicated. You know, Detroit has lost significant population over the last couple of decades, really, over the last few decades, and so because there’s a constitutional requirement that districts be equally populated, you know, some of the districts did have to include, you know, parts of Detroit and parts of areas like the suburbs of Detroit, and making those decisions optimally you would want, like, input from people about, like, OK, we have to, like, have these sort of urban-suburban districts so which one makes the most sense, right. You know, it’s—you know, of course, it was a little bit difficult to get input this cycle because of the compressed timeline because of the—you know, they didn’t have the data until August of last year and then also because of the pandemic. So you weren’t able to do as many in-person hearings and the like. But, you know, I think, you know, overall, the districts are much better than they were before the—you know, they’re sort of, you know, the—politically, they’re sort of jump ball maps or a jump ball state in terms of its racial fairness. I know there have been some critiques about that and we’ll have to see. I mean, I think, you know, there were data challenges in drawing the maps, you know, about—you know, particularly, around the Black ability to elect and it might be that, you know, like, somebody might be able to bring a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act if, in fact, the districts don’t perform the way that they were intended to perform in preserving Black political power. But, you know, like, I think the commission did the best job they could, given the time constraints it was under and, more particularly, with respect to Black districts, given the limited data that was available. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Councilman John Rutherford wrote a question, and he is a Metro Council member in Nashville, Tennessee. Are candidates being removed from ballots seen as a voting rights issue? Both parties have done this. Three GOP candidates for Tennessee—five just this week—GOP redrew the lines to favor their candidates. Now they are limiting who can run in their primary, for what used to be a strong Democratic district. LI: Well, I, certainly, think, like, you know, there is—you know, like, Carol is the expert on some of this but I do think, like, you know, in the South, in particular, there is sort of this, like, tradition of oligarchy, right. You know, like, there is this group of in people who sort of rule and they kind of, like, use, like, all kinds of things to sort of make sure that they stay in power and I think you’re, perhaps, seeing that, you know, both in the redistricting in Tennessee but then, you know, also in some of the aggressive sort of stances that they’ve taken on who can be on the—you know, who the Republican candidates can be. I think the issue in Tennessee is that, you know, you had to have voted in a certain number of Republican primaries and some people hadn’t and so that’s sort of an issue. But, you know, I do think, like, you know, one of the things that we’re facing now is that people are constantly changing the rules, right. You know, like, every time, like, you know, like, people are kind of, like—it’s, like, oh, people have figured out how to do this. Now you’re doing something else, right, and that is a—that’s something, of course, that has occurred around the country. But I think it’s, you know, particularly, something that’s occurred in the South. But Carol may have more to say on that. ANDERSON: Absolutely. I mean, we’re seeing it. After the 2018, I believe, election here in Georgia where there was a couple of safe Republican seats in Cobb County, which is a suburb of Atlanta, well, that suburb has become more racially diverse and those safe seats barely won, and the legislature then redrew the districts before the redistricting process—redrew the districts in order to move Black voters out of those Republican districts and to move White voters into those Republican districts to make them more safe and to put Black voters into a Black legislator’s district. I mean, so we’re seeing this happening and before the cycle is supposed to happen. So we’re seeing these rule changes to deal with the changing demographics and what the changing demographics mean for political power. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Ellen Craig-Bragg, who’s raised—has a raised hand—city clerk in Romulus, Michigan. Q: Hi. Good afternoon. And I’m Ellen Craig-Bragg. I am a city clerk in Michigan. And I wanted to just have a comment on the photo ID requirement here in Michigan. City clerks or township clerks in Michigan, we administer elections within our jurisdiction. I am one who supports our photo ID requirement. I really believe here in Michigan that we have a comprehensive or an inclusive set of election laws that address, particularly, the photo ID requirement. As a clerk, we use that photo ID to verify, you know, the address—of course, the identity of the voter, but their address, making sure that they are in the correct precincts. We allow—you know, we have several types of ranges of identification for voters and the one—there’s another piece to this, that if a voter comes in and they do not have the required photo ID—you know, ID requirements, there’s an affidavit that they would sign to say, I’m not in possession of the required photo ID so we don’t have to turn a voter away. They can still vote, you know, on election day. So as a clerk, which I understand, Ms. Anderson, and I appreciate the historical information there and I agree that probably—that in some states and a lot of the photo ID laws were predicated, you know, on, you know, voter fraud. But as a clerk for going on sixteen years, we’ve found that the photo ID has helped us in making sure in how we manage our voters in our precincts, making sure they’re in the right precincts. Maybe they’ve moved and we want to make sure that we can correct that information for the voter, especially with addresses, because we get people you know, moving around. So I just wanted to make that comment because someone mentioned about having a solution. So I think—here in Michigan, I think, we have a pretty good set of election laws concerning photo ID. Thank you. LI: And you’re absolutely—so, first of all, thank you for the work that you’re doing. It’s so critically important to our democracy. But I think the one thing that you pointed out in Michigan is that, you know, if you don’t have the ID for whatever reason—you know, if you’ve lost it recently or, you know, sometimes, like, senior citizens don’t have a recent ID, right, you know, because they stopped driving, right, you know, and they rely on their, like, old expired driver’s license, right, you know, for everything that they need and they don’t really need an ID very often, you know, like, you could sign this affidavit and say, like, you are who you are and you sign it and, you know, it matches up against the book and everything like that and so, you know, that it can be a very reliable, you know, alternative. And so, you know, I think, you know, providing people without ID a way to be able to vote and to, you know, assert their identity, I think, is a good solution, right. But requiring people to have a(n) ID, which, you know, like, in many states, like, it has to be, like, a current ID. It can’t be expired more than, like, six months or something like that, right. You know, and, like, sometimes, you know, like, there are people who, you know, like—you know, like, I know, like, you know, like, sometimes when people move, like, they forget to get a new driver’s license, right. You know, like, they forget to get—(laughs)—you know, like, it’s just not, like, you’ve got to get your kids in schools. You’ve got to get your utilities set up. You’ve got to start working a new job. Like, you know, like, you know, you forget about doing that until, like—you know, and the election’s coming up and if you have to have a current ID with your address and everything like that there’s no way to sort of get around that. Like, you know, like, for lots of good faith reasons people might, you know—if there’s no way around that then they will be disenfranchised and that’s, like, something that we shouldn’t really be doing. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And I would just say thank you for sharing your experience and we welcome that feedback as well because we want to share best practices amongst all of you and what’s working in your communities. So anybody else who wants to weigh in please raise your hand. I’m going to go next to Senator Sam Hunt in Washington State: Washington State has one of the most accessible voter laws in the country. We vote by mail with each ballot returned envelope requiring a signature. Online voter registration, election day registration, and ballots mailed to every voter over two weeks before the election. When registering, potential voters must sign an oath that say they are U.S. citizens. We have no—we have a record of virtually no voter fraud in our state, and I guess that’s more of a comment than a question, but sharing. One thing that we may have seen, however, in the 2020 election was the complexity of how to fill out that online ballot, that there was a lot of concern on how to do it and there were a lot of tutorials online. So is that something that could be streamlined across states, you know, how you do vote by mails so that your ballot isn’t invalidated if something is out of place? ANDERSON: You know, part of what we saw with the absentee ballots—the use of absentee ballots during the 2020 election was you saw an exponential increase in their use because of COVID-19, and so people were trying to juggle, how do I maintain my health and maintain my right to vote, and absentee ballots appeared to be the way to do it. But you saw some states that were putting additional requirements on the use of absentee ballots so that you had to get it notarized or you had to have witness signatures that you were who you were, which then seemed to undermine the whole thing about social distancing when you have to go get your ballot notarized. And it felt like yet another hurdle instead of—and because we do have these incredible models around the nation of states that use, basically—overwhelmingly use almost universal absentee ballot—mail-in ballots—to vote. We already have the model but you have states that were, like, how do we slow this down—how do we stop this. One of the things we’re looking at is how you had the problems with the post office and getting the ballots mailed in on time—the concern that that wouldn’t happen and so the rise of drop boxes. Well, when that became effective, then you had this assault on drop boxes and you also had the assault on the use of absentee ballots where you started getting the language that they were the source of massive rampant voter fraud, although we have these states like Washington that can clearly document that going to a universal mail ballot does not create massive rampant voter fraud. And so we have to always pay—to key into that language about real election integrity and the aura of election integrity in order to do damage to the American electorate. FASKIANOS: Mmm hmm. Next question from Hans Dosland, who is a legislative assistant in the Minnesota House of Representatives: What states have been champions of voter expansion? What are a few examples of some innovative approaches? LI: Oh. Well, there are a lot of states that have been doing a lot of good work. You know, some of the most exciting work now has been around automatic voter registration, which is a really great innovation, you know, where—you know, anytime you have interaction with a government agency you have the opportunity to sort of register to vote or to update your registration and, likewise, you know—you know, and that is really good reform. I mean, it makes voter registration much cheaper than it would be otherwise because if you think about it—like, I used to live in Texas and in Texas to this day if you want to register to vote you have to fill out a paper form and mail it in, and then somebody has to sit there and type it in and, invariably, you know, they will misspell your name or get something wrong. My middle name is Chinese and so, you know, invariably, people misspell it and it comes back wrong and, you know, in a world where you have a photo ID that matches, like, your voter registration, sometimes, you know, it’s, like, you actually have to sit there and go correct it and things like that. But, you know, in states like Minnesota, you know, a lot of, you know—Washington State—you know, have made it a lot easier to sort of vote by mail and to do it securely. You know, there are lots of—and, likewise, in Minnesota you can vote in person early, right, you know, for a very extended period of time and, you know, all of that, you know, just making it—you know, building—you know, making it so that you could vote in ways that are sort of convenient to you and sort of the ways that we expect. You know, we don’t think that we necessarily have to go to the, you know, the grocery store. If we can’t go to the grocery store we can order things online. You know, we can do—you know, we can do a lot of things. We can check our banking account. We don’t have to go to the bank. We can check our bank account online. You know, just having a lot more options that meet a very mobile, you know, time-pressed society can be great and I think, you know, there are lots of great examples around the country that are—where people are, you know, making it—and creating more options for people to vote and to vote securely. ANDERSON: Right. I think one of the things is what California did, which was it looked at Oregon and said, oh, we can do that. Because California had, like, a 42 (percent), 43 percent voter turnout rate, and the secretary of state said, no, we can do better. But what they added was to have preregistration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, because in order to get them hyped about the kind of civic engagement that voting requires and so to smooth the path for them that when they turned eighteen they were registered to vote. So you’re learning when you’re a sixteen- and seventeen-year-old, I’m going to be—I’m going to be registered to vote when I turn 18, and so that is one of those innovations in the system that has been really good. FASKIANOS: Great. So next question from Amy Loprest, who’s executive director of New York City Campaign Finance Board: What impact do you think that the gerrymandering and lies about voter fraud have on our already low voter turnout and how do we combat that? LI: Well, having, like, run campaigns in Texas in a prior life, I can tell you, like, when you sometimes call voters up and say, like, hey, are you going to vote for, you know, candidate X, they’ll tell you, like, why should I bother voting because they’ve already determined who’s going to win, right, you know, and, like, I do think, like, you know, like, I think that, you know, there’s a cynicism in a lot of states, you know, because of the way the district lines are drawn, and I think people—you know, it does impact turnout, particularly, you know, if you’ve got other things to do, right. You know, it’s, like, I could vote. You know, it’d be nice to vote. I happen to vote in every election. I probably drive by the polling place on Tuesdays just make sure there’s no election I forgot about. But, you know, not everybody’s like that and so sometimes you have to—you know, if people feel like, you know, everything has been predetermined, gerrymandering is, certainly, not helpful to that. And, likewise, you know, some of the gerrymandering is actually—you know, there’s at least some of this, you know, we’re still sourcing out. You know, we’ll know more. But, you know, it does increase, like, polarization, right. You know, like, parts of—I showed you in my PowerPoint, you know, parts of Denton County of suburban Dallas are now drawn into a very deeply red district that stretches all the way to the Texas Panhandle. Like, that’s going to produce a very different kind of Republican than was elected in a suburban Republican district, and I think that that also can be a turn off for people. And, you know, frankly, both parties, you know, are becoming more polarized as a part—you know, like, the Democratic districts are really Democratic and the Republican districts are really Republican and the only thing that matters is the primary, and when the only thing that matters is the primary you get more extreme candidates, and that can also be a turn off because, you know, if you’re, like, there’s nobody who—like, the candidates don’t represent me. Like, the guy who’s going to likely win does not in any way sort of, like, reflect my concerns. He doesn’t live here. He lives in rural Texas, right, you know, and things like that. And so, you know, I think that can also be a turn off. ANDERSON: Absolutely. And one of the things about—like, when Wisconsin was drawing its maps after the 2010 election they had two goals. One was to eliminate as many competitive districts as possible because they knew that competitive districts spurred voter turnout because people believed that their vote counted. But when you eliminate the competitive districts then it’s, like, oh, they’ve been here since— my mother would say since Hector was a pup. You know, they’ve been here. They’re always going to be here. This is what they are, right. This is—you know, so it doesn’t matter if I vote or not. This is who my representative will be. So when you eliminate competitive districts—and this is what one of Michael’s slides showed—when you eliminate those competitive districts you bring down voter turnout. The other component in Wisconsin’s plan was to say regardless of how many votes we get we will always have the majority of the power in the legislature. And so when voters see that, what it does is it causes a sense of cynicism, a sense of futility, that it doesn’t matter if I vote because this is what’s always going to happen. And so the gerrymandered districts do that. When you see that there is a massive difference between the polls of what Americans want in terms of key issues and then what the legislation that is coming through these spaces are bringing, and that also then spurs the sense of futility. Yes. And so the disenfranchising of techniques do damage to American democracy. FASKIANOS: Next question from Scot Wrighton, city manager in Decatur, Illinois: Has there been any progress on legally determining the respective role in election management between the federal and state governments based on Article One Section Four of the Constitution or will this legal gray area only be resolved by the Supreme Court? LI: Well, I think it’s been pretty clear that, you know, like, at least when it comes to federal elections that, you know, the states have the right to enact rules regarding the time, place, and manner of elections but the federal government has the ability to override those or create different rules, and, you know, Justice Scalia famously said that, you know, Congress has the power to, basically, enact a federal election code if it wanted to. It hasn’t. But he said, like, it could. That’s how broad its power is under the federal elections clause—Article One Section Four—of the Constitution. But there are some new challenges that are coming up and percolating up through the system about how, actually, you know, state courts, at least, don’t have the power to sort of, like, rule on election challenges or redistricting plans because Article I, Section 4 says the power to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is given to the legislatures of the state, and Republicans have been advancing the argument that, well, like, a court is not the legislature of the state and so, therefore, the courts have no power, even though like, you know, state courts have long ruled election disputes and the like. But, you know, this is sort of the argument and, you know, in that case, you know, we think it will probably be heard by the Supreme Court at some point. At least four justices have indicated a desire to hear that argument and it only takes four justices out of the nine to hear a case. It takes five to make a decision but, you know, it takes four to decide to hear a case. And so at an appropriate point in time sometime, you know, in the next year or two there will probably be some case that reaches the Supreme Court on that. I will say it is a radical argument. You know, like, in 2018, Republicans raised that after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down that state’s congressional map in order to redrawn—Republicans went to the Supreme Court and said the state supreme court has no power to do this. Justice Alito didn’t even grant the request for a stay. Well, he didn’t—he not only did not grant their request for a stay, he didn’t even refer to the whole Court. You know, the request for a stay comes to a single justice and they usually refer to the whole Court and the whole Court decides. Justice Alito just said denied. But now, you know, at least four justices seem to think it’s, like, a live issue, which, I think, shows you how conservative in a lot of ways the courts have gotten and how much in uncharted territory we really are. FASKIANOS: I’m going to combine a couple questions from Rose Reyes in Windham, Connecticut, town council and Mike Jacobs in Madison, Wisconsin. So, first, is—have all the maps been drawn and is there a deadline for completion and then from—where did that go? Sorry, as I go back—are legislators consulting academics when creating the maps? LI: Well, most of the maps are done, which is act one in America, right, because we—we’re Americans. We draw maps and then we litigate about them in court, right. So act one is almost done. There are three states that don’t yet have final congressional maps—New Hampshire, Missouri, and Florida, although Florida just passed maps today and Governor DeSantis is expected to sign them because they’re maps that he drew. And so congressional redistricting is almost—legislative redistricting is almost done. You know, the one round of redistricting that still is taking place around a lot of the country is local government redistricting because many states have—many local governments have elections in the odd-numbered years. You know, redistricting is still going on for city councils, county commissions, school boards, and the like, and so that will play out. And in terms of just consulting with academics, you know, they—you know, everybody has their experts and things like that. You know, I will say, like, commissions probably do a much better job of consulting with, you know, neutral experts because, you know, they—you know, I think when partisan actors draw maps they start off with the end goal in mind and they kind of consult with experts who help verify—(laughs)—where they want to go. But when you have commissions who are, you know, more honest brokers of the process and really just want to get it right, you know, they have been much more responsive to academics but, more importantly, (take a view to ?) the input, right? You know, in California, you know, like, the commission has done historically—and you see this around the country, too—a really good job of listening to community input. Like, there—in 2011 the commission in California drew a district that was based on keeping the Los Angeles foothills together because people came to the commission and said, like, hey, we have a common concern, which is wildfires, which is not being met, and if we’re in the same district we think we’ll have somebody who will advocate about wildfire prevention and safety in Sacramento, and the commission heard that and said, like, that’s a really good argument and drew the district, and to this day they have somebody whose, like, number-one priority seems to be preventing wildfires and wildfire safety. FASKIANOS: Carol, do you have any thoughts or should I go to the next question? ANDERSON: Go to the next question. Yes. FASKIANOS: OK. Great. So we only have a few minutes left, so I want to package a couple of questions from Diane Goldring, who’s a state representative in Illinois, and Kala at WURD radio: So what can President Biden do without needing congressional approval to counter states’ voting rights restrictions and is there anything he can do, you know, with his executive orders? And then from Kala: How do you work against voter suppression? I mean, we have seen with the 2020 election that there—a lot of talk about voter fraud, but there were very—it doesn’t really exist, right. So but there is this perception that they were not—there was voter fraud, regardless of the lack of evidence. So what do we do about this? Why don’t you each take a few—give us your final thoughts. ANDERSON: OK. I’m going to take the what-do-we-do question, and that is it is incredible organizing and mobilizing it at the grassroots level to deal with that kind of cynicism, to get the voter registration happening, to get the voter turnout, and they did it in the 2017 special senate race in Alabama between Doug Jones and Judge Roy Moore. All kinds of voter suppression had been deployed against that Black community and civil society got in there and just started moving those stumbling blocks out of the way. And it’s also true, though, because one of the threats—and this goes back to an earlier question—is that with all of the mobilization and voter turnout like we had in 2020 is that you see that what these legislators—legislatures are doing is that they’re adding not only these kinds of barriers, like, OK, so you used absentee ballots, let’s make that harder, but they’re also then beginning to seize control of the election certification machinery itself so that you’re getting the state takeover of local election boards. You’re getting who’s certifying this—who’s certifying the votes. And so the guardrails of democracy are being lowered so that the vote, the will of the people, can be overturned if that kind of mobilization and organization happens. And so it is to continue to alert and require our elected officials to actually fight for this democracy, to make it really clear what’s at stake, to get them fully engaged, to say that there is no issue that is more important than the viability of American democracy and this is where you must come down. FASKIANOS: Michael? LI: I have nothing, really, to add to that other than it was an excellent call to action by Carol. You know, I do think that we are at a pivot point in our country in a lot of ways. You know, like, we are becoming a multiracial country, you know, in ways that, you know, I think, and, you know, are shaking the system, shaking the roots of the system and, you know, at a certain point right now people—a lot of people are viewing that as a threat and I think, you know, we need to get to the point where people can view this as an opportunity because it actually is a strength of our country, not a weakness. But, you know, many people seem hugely threatened by it and, you know, unfortunately, it’s easy for them to push buttons and people are all too ready to respond to, and simply pushing back on that, I think, is incredibly important. FASKIANOS: Well, thank you both for this informative hour and to all of you for your questions and comments. There were many more in the Q&A. I’m sorry we couldn’t get to them all. But we will continue to look at this important issue. So, again, thank you to Carol Anderson and Michael Li. We will send out a link to the webinar, recording, and transcript and you can follow Dr. Anderson on Twitter at @ProfCAnderson and Michael Li at @mcpli. So, again, thank you both. We encourage you to go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis and, as always, you can email [email protected] to let us know how we can support the important work you are doing in your communities. So thank you all again. ANDERSON: Thank you. LI: Thank you. (END)
  • Energy and Climate Policy
    Russia and the Future of U.S. Energy
    Play
    Amy Myers Jaffe, research professor and managing director of the Climate Policy Lab at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, discusses economic sanctions on Russia and their implications for U.S. energy markets.   TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you and welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. We are delighted to have participants from forty-six U.S. states and territories with us for this conversation. So thank you for taking the time to join us. Today’s discussion on “Russia and the Future of U.S. Energy” is on the record. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, publisher, and educational institution focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR’s also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. We are pleased to have with us today Amy Myers Jaffe. She is a research professor and the managing director of the Climate Policy Lab at the Fletcher’s School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. She served as executive director for energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, and as senior advisor to the Office of Chief Investment Officer of the University of California Regents. And she was formerly a senior fellow for energy and the environment and director of the program on energy security and climate change here at CFR. So welcome, Amy. Thanks for being with us to talk about this issue. We are looking at—I think we are to the fifth week of Russia’s war on Ukraine. So I thought you could talk about the global energy market and the effect on U.S. oil and gas supply, and how this is affecting our U.S. energy policy. JAFFE: Thank you very much, Irina. It’s really a pleasure to be here, and a pleasure to be here with your State and Local Official program, which I found to be one of the most productive and successful programs at CFR. So really great to be back. I want to start out by saying something that will sound partisan, but I’m going to be actually saying that I think corrects dis- and misinformation. So we have in the oil market, and to a lesser extent in the natural gas market, a boom and bust cycle. If I have some local and state officials from my home state, Texas, you’ll know what I mean. But a lot of us, you know, read the paper. We know, you know, this is like the sixth or seventh time in my lifetimes, maybe more like three or four in some of your lifetimes, that we’ve had an oil price shock that’s affected Americans and American consumers. And I want to describe what’s happened in a slightly different way. I know there’s a lot of narrative that somehow we passed the Green New Deal and it’s left us with an oil crisis. But of course, we didn’t pass the Green New Deal. None of that legislation that was proposed was actually passed. There still is not a climate bill that passed the Congress. And so you say, well, then what happened? Well, it was other policies. Like, no, it wasn’t other policies. This is exactly what happened: We had a—from an oil perspective—we had a huge bust in 2020, which you can all remember, because nobody needed any oil because we were all locked in our homes. And so the price of oil, you might even recall—if you’re not inside baseball you might not remember this—but there was a day when the price of U.S. crude oil went to negative-$47. You’re hearing me correctly. It was not worth a dollar. It was not worth two dollars. People were literally having to pay to have the oil taken away because there was so much of it. And that caused—companies in the United States had to stop drilling because they’d run out of storage. Members of Congress from Texas and Louisiana had to call Saudi Arabia and tell them we’re going to cut their arms sales—our arms exports to them if they let their other new cargos that they didn’t have space for come to the United States, because it would have clogged up our system. We lent our Strategic Petroleum Reserve caverns to Australia because they needed some place to put their oil, right? So we had just too much oil and not enough demand. And then, lucky for us, the vaccine worked, in the sense that people—it lowered hospitalizations. We had a stimulus package. People got back to work. Oil demand went way back up. It went up in other places too. You know, China got out of lockdown. They felt they had a good policy for getting people back to work. The economy was churning. Oil demand rose suddenly. But remember, in 2020 everybody stopped drilling. So now we get to 2021, and oil demand snaps back up. We have a shortage. So price starts creeping up. And in the middle of that price creeping up, that would have been a good time—here in the United States companies started drilling again. That would have been a good time for OPEC to have put more oil on the market to prevent the market from getting overheated. And guess what they did? They did the opposite. They cut and restrained production. And then that gave Vladimir Putin a moment, where everybody was teetering on the brink of this very high oil and gas price, to take action. And I’m not even talking about the war yet. To just take action in markets. So Russia just didn’t provide extra natural gas into the markets in Europe. They owned the Gazprom, the state natural gas monopoly, owned storage tanks in Europe. And they just didn’t fill them. So we got to—we’re in the fall, and you have extremely low inventory of natural gas in Germany because, of course, the Russians own the natural gas tanks and they didn’t fill them. And things got worse and worse over time. And indeed, things would be even worse but for the fact that, number one, the U.S. companies started drilling more and we were able to sell and ship more natural gas from our export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico. And then the president, in my opinion wisely, started releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. Now, the president has an uphill battle releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. I mean, this is what it’s for. We are not at war in military men, but we are facing other means to try to prevent Russia from winning and jeopardizing the stability of Europe. And some of those means are economic sanctions. And therefore, we’re trying to ameliorate that with different policies, including using strategic stocks. The problem that you’re seeing, or you’re going to see, number one, is that if I am an American driver, and we have, you know, 300 million to 350 million cars on the road in the United States, many of us are using our cars to visit family because we’re not taking the train or doing other things we used to do as frequently because of COVID. And so normally everyone in the United States drives their car, on average, with half a tank. And figure, you know, the average car has, you know, an eighteen- or twenty-gallon tank. That means that for every car in America that’s driving full, you’re having an extra ten gallons. It’s forty-two gallons to a barrel of oil. So, you know, we could do the math in our head, but basically some of the oil the president has released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is sitting in the tanks of people whose cars are on full. And so when you ask, well, you know, how come it’s only brought down the price a little bit? How come it hasn’t done it more? Well, you know, that’s the explanation. So the president and yourselves, as local officials, we do have some other tools. If it turns out that further sanctions need to be placed on Russia or there’s going to be a larger disruption—I can talk to you a little bit about how much Russian oil I think is off the market. For sure we’ve lost a million barrels a day, maybe a million and a half barrels a day, just because European countries don’t want to buy it and they can’t sell everything they want to sell. So that is—you know, we already have a bit of a disruption. But, you know, the disruption could get worse depending on how things progress. And so we do have tools that we—you know, without being Jimmy Carter and putting a sweater on and saying Americans need to conserve energy—which is, I guess, and unpopular political statement, we’ve all learned that major employers in particular cities can allow employees to take a few days a week to telecommute and not drive into work. We know that because we can telecommute—I’m very productive in the morning when I don’t go to the office. So we could have people driving to work at different times of day. When we have everybody commute at the same time, believe it or not, we waste a half a million barrels a day of oil roughly, just from congestion in cities. So we could eliminate that by staggering—either staggering commuting hours or, alternatively, we could have restrictions on delivery vans operating during rush hour. Now, you know, we have these things—I, you know, spent many years in New York City. We get times of day you can’t go a certain direction on a certain road, you can’t use the bus lane, you can’t make a right turn, right? So people are used to having certain restrictions during rush hour. We could have restrictions of deliveries to not be made in the hour or hour and a half of rush hour. And then also it would relieve congestion, which believe it or not would greatly reduce oil use. So there are things we could actually do. I want to be sensitive to time because I really want to talk to you about what you are wondering about and what you are thinking about, so I just want to make an extra statement. Many of you might remember when Colonial Pipeline went down in the cyberattack. We’re on high alert for Russia to make cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure. It’s not correct to ask me how come it hasn’t happened yet, because actually there have been extreme attempts to disrupt the operations of our largest natural gas producing companies and our big LNG export terminals that are competing with Russia. They’ve all had cyber intrusions since the invasion, or even just prior to the invasion. So it’s just that we’ve been vigilant. But, you know, one can never be vigilant enough with these multiple attempts at hacking. So one of the things I wanted to mention to you was that around the time of Colonial Pipeline, there were cyberattacks on various cities in Oklahoma. I think Tulsa was one of them. And they were trying to get, I think, to billing programs or other kinds of assets, tax records or whatever, that would help them pierce a cyber pathway, a computerized pathway to a major storage terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. So different things around Cushing, Oklahoma, got hacked, but luckily the hackers never got to Cushing, Oklahoma. But all of you need to be thinking about the systems that you have in state government and local government that connect to the offices of energy facilities or interact with energy companies that pay their taxes—you know, maybe in the automated fashion or electronically. You want to be thinking about your electronic connections to energy infrastructure, because that was a big problem with the Colonial incident. And then the other thing I’d just point out, which—you know, is that there were passwords for the VPN—names and passwords for the VPN system of Colonial Pipelines employees. I know that they said publicly that they were circulating a week before the attack. I can tell you, some of those names, from what I understand from talking to people from industry, were circulating for a year or more on the dark web. So I’m sure you all use cyber consultants. The question is have you—have you had them search the dark web for you to see if your names and passwords are circulating? If you have them circulating, you obviously have to go to dual authentication to make sure that someone can’t just use those passwords. They have to then, you know, send a message to someone’s cellphone and the person has to respond before you can enter the network. But it would be a good time again to think about the security of different facilities, and then also the electronic connections electronically to any energy facilities. So let me stop there and let me hear what’s on your mind and what you’d like to hear about. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you, Amy. And let’s go to all of you. We already have hands raised, so when I call on you please identify yourself. You can also write your question in the Q&A box. And if you do that, please identify yourself there so that we know who you are. Let’s see. Ronald Cope has written a question but has also raised his hand. So why don’t you go ahead and ask it yourself? And please unmute yourself. Q: So my question is, on the first day in office President Biden revoked thousands of oil permits. And the petroleum industry says they can produce much more oil. Can we be energy independent, as we were two years ago? JAFFE: OK. Let’s take that one apart, Ronald. That’s a great question, on everybody’s mind. First of all, the oil industry, which I—you know, I lived in Houston twenty-five years—which I know intimately from my twenty-five years in Houston, they’re a shrewd bunch of executives. And in 2020, because they weren’t sure what was going to happen, they stockpiled—especially in New Mexico, where their drilling was on federal lands—they stockpiled permits. And, you know, people like the chairman of Devon Energy and EOG, you know, reported to their shareholders at investor meetings that they had enough permits to last them through 2024. And if you don’t believe me, you can go to the Associated Press and they’ll give you the actual tallied information. If you follow me on Twitter it’s on my Twitter feed, right? So permits are not the problem. Now, I have talked to the oil industry because it’s possible—and your question highlights a concern—which is we want to make sure that the Biden administration isn’t doing anything to prevent us from having the industry be able to gear up, especially if the United States were to wind up being in a much—more involved in Europe’s security. I don’t know how to put that in a tactful way. So right now, we’re supporting the Ukraine but, you know, there’s diesel fuel shortages in Europe. Takes a lot of oil to, you know, run a war. Hopefully, we will not become militarily engaged, but we have to plan as if it could happen because we don’t want to be caught out of turn. So the question is, what can the industry do? And I’ve talked to the industry. And I’ve talked to people in the Biden administration. And I do believe that there is a solution. It’s a kind of a strange mix of things that happen in the global market. So if needed more oil and the oil companies have certain budgets that they’ve already planned we’re going to have an extra 900,000 barrels a day of oil being produced, mostly in Texas but around the country, from our onshore production this year. And I asked the industry, could you do more? And if you wanted to do more, what would you need? And, you know, different companies say different things. You’ve probably seen the explanations in the press. Nobody said leases. Nobody needs leases. They said they needed the following things: They might need the U.S. government to prioritize access to steel to the oil industry. They might need the U.S. government to prioritize certain chemicals to the oil industry. They would need to have—gear up to have more skilled crews to do some of the work. That might be a little harder. And then they have—the constraint is that, you know, companies are commercial entities. They have budgets. They don’t necessarily have extra cash. They’re under pressure to provide dividend checks to their shareholders because that’s kind of the direction we’ve been going in, in the industry. A lot of times they, unfortunately, buy back their own stock instead of using the money to drill. So but the point is, there’s a paradigm where governments—in this case it would be the U.S. government—in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea, they needed money otherwise they were going to have to stop drilling. And so Chinese gave—China gave Russia the money in advance. They used that money to drill. And then they gave China the oil. Now, that sounds crazy, but we could actually do that here in the United States. The United States government could pay for oil that the oil industry would drill from the shale. The oil could be available in three to six months, right, depending on how much of an emergency we thought it was. The United States government would then own the oil, and they would have the opportunity to do different things with it. We could put it back in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to replace the barrels we’re using now. We could use it, if we—God forbid—the Pentagon needed fuel for its own operations. That oil could be processed at refineries and the products could go to the Pentagon. Or we could sell the oil to our allies. If Germany was short oil because they got cut off by the Russians, then this extra U.S. oil could be sent to Europe. So it’s a really interesting plan. I wish that everybody would stop saying their partisan soundbite and work on this plan, because I’ve been told by the chairmen of multiple oil companies from the United States that they’re on board with this plan, this plan could work. And then when you get into the details everybody goes back down their favorite cable TV narrative show, and they’re not doing the hard work of figuring out exactly how you would structure the pricing. It’s been done all around the world. Angola’s done it, Nigeria’s done it, many countries have done it. It could be done well here by the U.S. Treasury Department, together with the oil—you know, major producing oil companies. We could use a tender system like we use for the strategic petroleum reserve. So it’s highly doable. And we now know from COVID that we really could, you know, target the materials that the oil industry needs to do more. We could allocate it to them, because we’ve done that for, you know, vaccination production. So we know how to do that. So, Ronald, there’s many things we could do. And I hope I’ve made you a convert. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let’s go next to Georgi Touchef (ph), who works for Representative Matthew Bradford in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Q: Hi. Good afternoon. Can you hear me OK? JAFFE: I can. FASKIANOS: We can. Q: My name is Georgi Touchef (ph). I’m your average budget analyst for Committee on Appropriations for the state of Pennsylvania. My question relates on the end sale in terms of gasoline. So I’ve done some tracking. It’s not only myself that’s done it. If we track crude oil prices to price at the pump, they normally move in a similar direction. That has not necessarily been the case through the beginning of the conflict—basically since Russia invaded Ukraine. My question is, is there a possibility that we would actually hold, whether it’s, you know, gas stations, whether it’s businesses that basically sell gas to the general public, responsible for lack of movement in those prices? Because it is—I’m of the opinion that there is a significant sort of efforts to gain profits rather than relieve the price at the pump. So those prices are almost artificially held above a certain level. So I was looking to get your opinion in terms of what can—I mean, you know, traditionally those should be market prices, with a number of variables that are included as how they’re set. But it doesn’t seem to be that way. JAFFE: So, Georgi (sp), you will be interested to know that I sat for three years on a panel in California on this very topic. So the crude oil feedstock price to refineries is, like you say, a major determinant on what influences the price of gasoline. But, you know, you can have local variables. And as I mentioned, you know, the—when people tank up ahead of a hurricane, or whatever, you know, you get outages. And we’re seeing some outages in different places in the United States today because people are afraid so they’re running their tank high, and that holds the price up. But that doesn’t mean that some particular set of station owners couldn’t be in a particular locale price gouging. And I think the best way to look at localized price gouging is to look at average gasoline prices statewide or in a particular part of the state. We spent a lot of time in California looking at it, and we concluded—(laughs)—that there was some problem in California—which policymakers decided not to take my advice for how to fix it, but that was their choice. And they still have the problem. But there are things that could be done. My opinion is, it's a matter for your local Justice Department, honestly. That’s, I think, where the investigation needs to go. And they probably need some people who would help them. That would—like, you’re doing, you know, look at a survey and see if there are particular owners that are overcharging. And then one would also look at whether those owners have ever met with each other because, of course, that would be against the law. So I think there are things that can be done. I think it kind of belongs to the Justice Department. And I think the Biden administration has the Justice Department looking at it. The Justice Department in California decided not to prosecute the companies. But I can tell you, sitting on a panel for three years, there were some very dicey things that got done to keep that market up in California, where companies literally moved gasoline out of the state to hold the price up. So, you know, it takes a full investigation, but I think that the place that that investigation belongs is not in the political domain, but in our legal domain. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take a written question from Mayor Pro-Temp Carole Moore. Mayor in Laguna Woods, California. We are down 30 percent in our reserves. Oil for vehicles is only one use, although largest. The oil products used in many products such as plastics, paint, et cetera. To end use dramatically is not a clear and sustainable policy. What can be done to make certain reduction is sensible? JAFFE: Well, listen, you know, you’re in California. There’s no question the larger amount of vehicles we have that run on electricity the better off we’re going to be. And, you know, you can say, well, but we don’t have a lot of—we have to generate that electricity. And then people say, well, some of—we’re using coal, or we’re using this, we’re using that. The point is, we generate electricity in this country without using oil. We use nuclear. We use hydro. We use many different things to generate that electricity. And we have a lot of natural gas, and we have a lot of renewables that are untapped—renewable resource that’s untapped. California is pursuing that. So clearly, we want to accelerate electrification of the vehicle fleet. And we also want to try to get fleet trucks and delivery trucks, electric. So, California, your ARB is doing the right thing. You know, having the ride hailing companies have to go to electric, that’s a good thing. Meaning that the delivery vehicles for Amazon or other e-commerce companies have to go electric, that’s a good idea, right? So you know, the challenge we have in today’s crisis with the war is it’s hard to do those things—as you know, from sitting in California—it’s hard to do those things quickly. So now we have a shortage of new cars because we don’t have enough chips, and then we’re not going to—same thing with electric cars. So I actually—literally, my husband called our dealership last week, because we saw that the electric version of a car we wanted was coming out in 2022. They told us they would put us on the waiting list for 2024. So I may put myself on that waiting list or I might shop some other brand of car in hopes to find one, but I know from other friends of mine who are wealthier than I am that the waiting list for Tesla is also over a year. So, you know, there’s only so fast we can go. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go that way, because the year will come around very, very fast. And it’ll turn out that we’re probably not out of the problem a year from now, even if hopefully the war is resolved a year from now. You know, this problem of the boom/bust cycle in oil we’re going to get out of quickly, and we need to try to transition as fast as possible to other technologies. FASKIANOS: But to that point, Amy, how are we doing in setting up electrical charging stations across the U.S.? JAFFE: Well, California’s better because the states put a lot of emphasis on that. You know, we’re lagging what I think makes people feel comfortable. If you were really going to drive electric across the entire United States, you might have some difficulty. I mean, Tesla claims if you have the app then you can make it, but it’s a little harder than it seems. And we haven’t solved one—I mean, we’re talking about, you know, the infrastructure bill had more charging—public charging stations. And you’re seeing some states being proactive. And even some of the oil companies are investing in charging station companies. The problem really becomes, frankly, for places where people live in apartment buildings. Because I can tell you, as an electric car owner, that if you’re plugging into your house—really, truly, people misunderstand how much they actually drive. You only drive probably thirty miles a week if you’re not commuting—like, if you’re just doing local driving and you’re not using your car to go back and forth to work. The average American commutes thirty miles each way. So that might be a little more of a hassle. But if you actually thought about it, thirty miles each way, that’s sixty miles. A good electric car has got two hundred miles to the charge. I mean, that’s good enough to go back and forth to work. Then you’re going to come home and plug it into your garage. When you get up in the morning, it’s fully charged. So you don’t even really need charging stations if you’re willing to charge at home. And I lived that way. And I will tell you, my husband—I was the one with the electric car. He always took my car. He’s like, taking your car because it’s charged. And then we were like people with a cellphone, right? Neither of us would want to take the gasoline car, because that would mean that person would have to go to the gasoline station and pay for gasoline. (Laughs.) And even though it was in our electricity bill, so we’re obviously paying for the fuel, it had a different psychological feel. So we would game to stick the person with the gasoline car so they’d be the one who would have to stop at a gasoline station. So everybody used this electric car unless they were going way farther than the car’s range. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m going to go next to Rich Mallory, who has a raised hand, from the Maryland Energy Administration. And unmute yourself. Hopefully, you can do—there we go. Q: Thank you, Irina. And thank you, Amy, for taking my question. If Colonial Pipeline had been a publicly traded company, if there had been a more diverse group of smart money involved, do you think they would have been hacked? JAFFE: Yeah. I mean, they’re like the jugular. If you were a state actor—I’m not going to accuse any particular country—if you were a state actor and you wanted to make the point to the U.S. government that you could make the president very uncomfortable, right, for strategic negotiating—whatever your geopolitical reason—Colonial’s a great target. So, I mean, the different things that Colonial did wrong, I mentioned the thing about their VPN system. And, by the way, if you quit Colonial and left, they didn’t bother to shut down your VPN account. So that means that every former employer (sic; employee) was a risk to the company because all those accounts were just floating around unused. But going beyond that, they had all kinds of firewall problems, because they actually automated the entire pipeline with all these sensors. And then it was really very high tech, because they could eliminate all their employees and save a lot of money and make more money for the management by, you know, eliminating all the people who did things clerically because they could do everything by computer. The sensors would tell you how much gasoline was delivered in a particular place. And then it would send that data back to the business office. And then that would automatically make an invoice that would go to the customer. Do you know what the problem was with that, Rich? The problem with that was that if that hack had been worse, they could have gone—that same hack could have traveled into all the customers of Colonial Pipeline. That means it would have gone into military installations. It could have gone all through Washington, right? It could have hacked everybody’s distribution company. So, you know, it’s a very—airports. It was a very dangerous hack. And it really raised the question about whether or not it’s OK for private infrastructure to not be regulated in how it manages its cyber preparedness. And we’re still fooling around with that topic on Capitol Hill. There have been more bills passed in the last week or two about the requirement of reporting. If you have a breach to your—say you just had a breach to your business office, and you were Colonial. You felt you didn’t have to report that to CISA, but, you know, actually that turned out to be a material thing for the U.S. military that you had that breach. So now we’re changing the rules and we’re making it much more tight that you have to report payments of ransomware. (Laughs.) And you have to report breaches. And, you know, what’s tracked is what’s measured is fixed. So my feeling is if I have to report it, then it means I have to monitor it. And if I have to monitor it, I’m less apt to be hacked because I’m monitoring it. So I think those regulations are a good thing and hopefully will help. FASKIANOS: So I’m going to go next to Brandon Bowser who wrote his question, but also raised his hand. And it’s on—I think it’s on cyberattacks. So, Brandon, why don’t you ask your question? And identify yourself, please. Q: Sure. Thank you very much. Yeah, I also work with Rich at the Maryland Energy Administration. I’m our agency’s energy resilience program manager. So I offer a few incentives that help grow microgrids throughout the state of Maryland. And so, yeah, sort of pulling on the theme that Rich started with, with the Colonial Pipeline. You mentioned early in the call that cyberattack threats are on the rise, obviously, with the geopolitical situation. That being the case, and with the increasing prevalence of distributed energy resources coming online on our grid, that makes more entry points for these bad actors, of course, to get in and start attacking things. I mean, I’m really thinking about those real critical infrastructures like hospitals, medical facilities, water treatment plants. What is the federal government doing really to take a look at ramping up any security protocols, recommendations, or regulations that can really help prepare us for these types of threats? Because more entry points obviously increases the severity of attack that could be carried out. JAFFE: Correct. So you have—I mean, there’s the flipside to that. There’s the more entry points, right? And Colonial was instructive on that. But there’s also the practice. So if you segment all your entry points, then you are less apt to have it go all the way through a system. So another thing Colonial did wrong was the way their IT worked was along the entire pipeline, through all those different states, they had no IT and firewall segments. It was just all one program, right? So that’s a problem, because they couldn’t shut down one section and analyze it, and they couldn’t find the hack in one place and only shut down that place. And also, they couldn’t operate anything manually, so that’s also a problem. So just mentioning all those problems. But, you know, you raise a very important question, which is that if you have all these different ways that, you know, hostile actors can enter the system. So a couple of things. You know, you are a resilience officer so maybe I’m preaching to the choir here, but the most important thing actually—I mean, you know, we want to do monitoring, and we want to do segmentation, and we want to do all these things to try to prevent an attack. But, you know, law of averages, some attacks are going to get through. So the other thing we want to concentrate on is restoration and recovery. So one of the things again we learned by accident, is that the shipping—container ship company Moller Maersk, had a major attack on itself in 2017. And their entire—I forget the name of it—their entire software management system for the entire company—you know, hundreds of countries—you know, hundreds of locations in multiple countries—went down. Their whole system went down. And it happens that on the day that everything went down and they lost all their data, there was a unit that was operating in Nigeria. And Nigeria had a blackout that same day because they had bad power—(laughs)—you know, stability. And the systems in Nigeria for Maersk were shut off from the internet. And none of the data was compromised because it was turned off. It was disconnected from the internet. It was on devices that were literally off. So that made people realize that one of the things that operators need to do is they need to have regularly updated data, real-time data for their operations, that is one a device or a storage platform that is not connected to the internet, so that the restoration process can be faster. And also, you don’t have to pay the ransomware. So that was a lesson which the oil industry now does. I know a lot of the people in the oil and gas industry now, they have separate mainframes that are off that store the data. And they turn them on briefly to load back up the data and then they turn it off again, right? (Laughs.) So that’s one process that one has to think about. And, you know, I mean, the federal government unfortunately can’ be everywhere. And that does mean it falls to state and local agencies, like your own. And if you think about it, because I’m sure there’s someone in Maryland who’s done this and this has not been instituted at the federal level but it’s something we could think about—so I mentioned the strategic petroleum reserve. We do have an emergency fuel system where there’s a communication—like, the schematic, it’s been used in the past, where state officials make assessments about fuel shortages. I mean, I’ve seen that myself. When I lived in Texas, of course, we had all the hurricanes and suddenly there was no fuel and people couldn’t evacuate, right? So we have these—and I was on a panel for the U.S. Department of Energy for a year where we studied the emergency fuel system, which is a combination of energy companies that provide the fuel—you know, distributors and refiners—these states agencies that would be assisting people if there was a fuel emergency, and the U.S. Department of Energy, where the director of the Energy Information Administration is the coordinator. And the idea is to, you know, like we did, you know, during COVID or other times, we look at the data nationally and for a particular state. We can move fuel from one state to another. We can have refiners address outages by inventory. We can move things by truck. There are all kinds of things we do when we’re in an emergency fuel situation. And my feeling is we could have a similar system for cyber training and information. The way we do these drills for fuel emergencies, we could also have something like that set up for energy and cyber. And we do not have that yet. So that would be something, I think, that the states and the federal government could look at, which is how do we do training and coordination for emergency procedures? FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Erica Blyther, who is the petroleum administrator for L.A., city of Los Angeles in California. There’s been a large focus on vehicles and fuel. Are there also plans for jets and air travel to reduce fuel demand? JAFFE: So jets is very hard. You have some companies—United in particular has been very forward-looking in trying to come up with biofuel that would meet the unbelievably strict and tight and important specifications for jet engines, because, of course, they can’t be a molecule off-spec or, you know, we have all these people up in the air. So people are working on that. Companies are working on that. There’s R&D money from the federal level that looks at that. Some people have suggested that maybe we could get to the point where we could use hydrogen in planes. Some people experimenting with very small planes running on solar electricity. That seems a little harder to do at a large scale. But it’s a harder puzzle than doing on the ground vehicles. And that’s why it’s probably going to be the last place that we tackle. And, you know, speaking from L.A., you know, I mean, I was out there. It would be great to have a high-speed rail between San Francisco and L.A., and then we wouldn’t need to use all those planes for people who just don’t have the time to drive or don’t have the health to drive. You know, for years—for years I frustratingly drove back and forth from Houston to Dallas, another fantastic route that could be easily serviced by high-speed rail. Obviously on the East Coast it would be fantastic if we had high-speed rail. And I just—you know, we don’t have the political will to spend the money on that because it would take all new rail. And we would have to actually build new tracks because, you know, the tracks we have between the East Coast, you know, just couldn’t do it. And, you know, you have entrenched players like Southwest Airlines, an important company in Texas, you know, tried to squash the high-speed rail. And you know, California’s story, as you know, I’m sure well from L.A., was a very complex story for why it got funded and then not built. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Utah State Representative Ken Ivory who has raised his hand. (Pause.) And if you can unmute yourself— Q: Here we go. Thanks. FASKIANOS: There we go. Q: Thank you. Yeah, I wanted to follow up on the New York Times article from last week that talked about the Defense Production Act, mentioned forty-six-some-odd minerals that we import at least half, and wondering if you could comment on what the use of the Defense Production Act would do to get us to some level of independence on these forty-six different minerals. Then the article also mentioned that the administration would look at further potential uses of the Defense Production Act in relation to the energy sector. I wonder if you could comment and flesh that out a little bit. JAFFE: Well, we definitely need to be more independent on the metals that we need if we’re going to, you know, move forward on electric vehicles, if we’re going to move forward on some other kinds of technologies that we want to do, and also—just honestly—as a matter of U.S. defense. We have minerals—we either don’t have them—rare earth minerals where we don’t have them and they are needed for the U.S. military to operate; for example, night vision glasses. We don’t have the materials being produced here in the United States. We’re importing them actually from China, so that seems like a problem. But we also don’t have the processing here, so we definitely need to hasten manufacturing. We’ve all learned with COVID that having one supplier country for something is unwise. Now we’re doubly learning that with the crisis with Russia, and it goes across so many different things because now we’re learning that the key ingredients to make fertilizer for food came from either Russia or the Ukraine, or Belarus, and now there are some parts of the world where people are concerned there might be food shortages. I don’t think we’ll see that here in the United States, but the farm community is going to have to pay a lot more for their inputs than in the past because of the crisis in Europe. And, I mean, the list of things we offshored is so large. It’s almost hard to like wrap one’s brain around it. And we are—I think the reality is we’re not going to be able to be self-sufficient in everything. I think I’m not making an extreme statement when I say that whereas the previous administration might have pooh-poohed the fact that we don’t need these alliance systems, when you look at all the different material we need, both to conduct our own national security and to manufacture the things we need to make sure that Americans have the food they need safely, have the equipment to have automobiles, and so forth—now that we can see all that, then you can understand that we’re just not going to be able to manufacture all of that in the United States. We also need to tap our alliance system. And so I just think it’s important. And then we also—corporations I think are learning the hard way that having risky places in your supply chain might be cheaper in the short run, but could be very damaging to their operations in the long run. So I think you will see the private sector make its own adjustments. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Andrew Epstein who wrote his question, also raised hand, so why don’t you just ask it yourself? Q: Hi. Sorry, can you hear me? FASKIANOS: Yes. JAFFE: Yes. Q: Hi, good to be with you. Thank you for your expertise and knowledge. I am Andrew Epstein. I’m chief of staff to Assemblymember Gallagher in New York State, and we’re gathered here today, a day after the IPCC, reflecting the overwhelming consensus of hundreds of scientists around the world, told us that we have 30 months, right—the distance between October 2019 and now—is the same distance that we have into the future to start turning around the trajectory of global emissions if we are going to have a prayer of having a livable planet for us, for our kids, for our grandkids. It’s dire, and it’s happening right now. And I totally recognize the context of the Ukraine conflict and the very real pain Americans are feeling at the pump, but I just feel like I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you to reflect a little bit on how releasing oil from the strategic reserve, facilitating increased domestic production—all of these things we’ve been discussing today—how that comports with the incredibly clear message that the global scientific community is telling us right now about the livability of our planet. So I would love to hear some thoughts on this. JAFFE: OK, Andrew, can you tell me, how did you get to work today? Q: I took a bus. JAFFE: OK. And what did that bus use for fuel? Q: Unfortunately, I believe they use, quote, “clean gas”—I’m in New York City, right? They advertise some form of— JAFFE: They use—they use—they probably use natural gas, right? Q: Right, right. So-called, yeah. JAFFE: OK. So here’s the problem, right? First of all, the Biden administration is not producing extra oil and making extra emissions. We are replacing Russian oil and Russian emissions. And the Russian oil and gas is the most methane-intensive in the world. So to the extent that we replace a barrel produced in Russia with a barrel produced almost anywhere else in the world, we’re better off from a climate perspective. Q: Is that what the IPCC has to say about it? JAFFE: That is the—that is absolutely a scientific fact. If you do not believe what I am saying, you can email me. My email is—(inaudible)— Q: Sure. JAFFE: —and I will send you the data. Q: Sure, I would love to see where the IPCC has said that a barrel of American gas is better than a barrel of— JAFFE: It’s World—it’s World Bank—it’s World Bank data. It’s World Bank data, right? It’s World Bank and other data sources—International Energy Agency data—that shows that the Russian production is the most carbon-intensive in the world. That’s a fact. It’s just a fact. Now I understand how you feel. I feel the same way. I mean, I was just telling Irina before I came on the call I actually changed jobs so that I could work a hundred percent of my time on the climate crisis. You heard my title. I am the managing director of the Climate Policy Lab. My lab spends every minute of every day trying to help countries develop decarbonization strategies that will work without putting people out of work. That’s what we do, right? Reindustrialization is what we call it, right? But that said, with all due respect, are you going to not—I mean, there are just people who have to go to work. They can’t work from home, and they have a car or a vehicle that runs on fuel. And, I mean, they can’t afford an electric car, and even if they could, there isn’t one available to buy. And by the way, New York State, right? Why don’t you call up Maine and ask them why they won’t let there be a wire to bring clean hydroelectric power to New York City so that you don’t have to use natural gas for your bus, right? Everybody has an ax to grind. Maine doesn’t want a wire in their forest land. Other people don’t like hydro because, you know, it affected some other ecological system, right? You know, energy requires infrastructure. Infrastructure disrupts somebody’s backyard, disrupts some animal, disrupts something. So we have to make decisions, and I agree with you, right? Climate change should be the top priority. I do that, made that commitment in my own daily life. It’s all I work on a hundred percent of the time except when people call me up because I know a lot about oil and gas, and say, we’re in a national emergency. I mean, honestly, if we were at war, right? I mean, I hate to speak like this because I only have five minutes left. I watch the international news with great intensity because even though I try to work 99 percent on climate change, you know, I have a background in looking at security, and last time I looked, Vladimir Putin made a speech that explained to our country that he’s got nuclear submarines off the East Coast of the United States pointing at us. And right now, in this ten minutes, every piece of military equipment that operates in the world, from the United States military to everybody else, operates on liquid fuel; i.e. some form of oil. That’s just the reality of the way it is. Maybe there’s a drone out there that operates on electricity, you know, or hydrogen. Everything else is oil. And we cannot be caught in a situation where we can’t defend ourselves as a nation because there is not enough oil. And it happened. Part of the reason that we just stopped having electric cars in 1910, Andrew—literally—is because we had to move all that metal into weaponry, and then Europe didn’t have railroads, and the Germans did. Germany controlled all the railroads, so we had to get Ford Motor Company and other companies to make trucks that could run on liquid fuel so that we could move men and people around so that we didn’t lose the war. And that’s just the reality of where we are. We’re in a horribly dangerous time, not only because of climate change, but because there is this small percentage chance that we could have a nuclear war. And the president has to deal with that every morning he wakes up. He has—his best and top goal, I’m afraid, is to make sure we don’t have a nuclear exchange with Russia. That’s the first thing on his mind. And maybe the second thing on his mind is climate change, but the first thing on his mind is to make sure we don’t have nuclear war. FASKIANOS: All right. So we have three minutes left. I’m going to take the last question from Matthew—I’m not going to be able to pronounce his name properly—Kazmierczak—who is government and legislative affairs in San Jose. What should local government agencies be doing to ensure stability and resilience for its residents given the uncertainty of energy supplies, and that this isn’t an issue that local government have any control over? So what about ensuring stability for local budgets at the micro and macro level? JAFFE: Oh my God, I would hate to be a city official doing the fuel budget today. You are definitely going to have to allocate more money for fuel, and that’s very depressing because my daughter used to work for the city of San Jose, and I know you have a lot of really worthwhile services for people. That would be horrible if you had to cut them just because fuel costs are going to go up. So, you know, unfortunately, I mean, there’s not much I can tell you. To the extent that you have urban—you know, city vehicles and you can move those to alternative energy, I think—I still think you are going to do better with electricity than you are going to do with oil over time. You know, I mean, it just is what it is. I mean, your best bet is efficiency. So if there’s money that you could spend to replace equipment, to make the current equipment—whether that’s your vehicle fleet, or your power generation fleet, or your buildings—more energy efficient, that’s going to be money well spent. It not only lowers emissions, but it means that over time your energy bill will go down. And maybe that’s an investment to make because there’s really—it’s going to be hard to avoid. FASKIANOS: Well, with that, Amy Myers Jaffe, thank you very much. I apologize for not being able to get to all the questions and comments in the Q&A box. We obviously have run out of time, but we do appreciate your being with us and for your good questions. We will send out a link to this video in the transcript, and we’ll circle back to you, Amy, for anything else you want us to include—some of the reports you mentioned and some of the work that you are doing at your lab. And you can follow Amy on Twitter at @AmyJaffeenergy. You might need to change your Twitter handle to climate change. (Laughs.) JAFFE: Yeah, right. Well, energy, you know, transitioning our energy system is a climate change activity, so— FASKIANOS: There you go. And you can also follow State and Local Officials at @CFR_local so we hope that you will do that. Please email us with any suggestions to state and local at cfr.org, and as always, go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise. So again, Amy Myers Jaffe, thank you very much. And to all of you, we hope you stay safe and well, and we look forward to continuing our conversations. JAFFE: Thank you for having me. (END)
  • Infrastructure
    Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructure
    Play
    Heidi Crebo-Rediker, adjunct senior fellow at CFR, leads a conversation with Stephen E. Flynn, founding director of the Global Resilience Institute at Northeastern University, on the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and how officials can utilize IIJA funding in ways that address resilience, sustainability, climate adaptation, and equity. A question-and-answer session will follow their conversation.   TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you, and welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. We’re delighted to have participants from forty U.S. states and territories with us today. Thank you for taking the time to join us for this discussion on resilient and sustainable infrastructure. As a reminder, this discussion is on the record. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership and educational organization, think tank, and publisher focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine, and, as always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of topics. We are pleased to have Heidi Crebo-Rediker and Stephen Flynn with us today. I will just give a few highlights from their bios. Heidi Crebo-Rediker is an adjunct senior fellow at CFR and a partner at International Capital Strategies. Prior to her time at CFR, she served as the U.S. Department of State’s first chief economist. She was also the chief of international finance and economics for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Stephen Flynn is the founding director of the Global Resilience Institute at Northeastern University, where he leads courses in civil and environmental engineering, public policy, and urban affairs. He is a principal for Stephen A. Flynn Associates, which provides independent advisory services on improving critical infrastructure security and resilience, and Dr. Flynn also spent ten years as a senior fellow for national security studies at CFR. So it’s great to have him back. So I’m going to turn it now over to Heidi to have a conversation with Steve, and then we’ll go to all of you for your questions and comments. Again, we want this to be a forum to share best practices so we encourage you to, you know, give us your insights into what you’re doing in your own communities. So, Heidi, over to you. CREBO-REDIKER: Thank you. Well, thank you, Irina, for convening such a great group of state and local government officials, and, Stephen, it’s great to have you back at CFR again for this. So thank you for joining us today. This is—just in terms of the format, this is really—you know, this is Stephen’s expertise and so I will play, you know, pure facilitator and moderator. We’re going to try and do about fifteen minutes of opening remarks and I think Stephen has some slides as well. But, you know, this is—following on our call that we had on water infrastructure, we have, again, 1.2 trillion (dollars) in funds that are coming—both formula and grant money and loan money coming out of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and some of it is standard issue in terms of how state and local governments access those funds and some of these programs are entirely new with entirely new objectives and parameters and way to think about how applying for them. So on the question of resilience, this is, I think, around 50 billion (dollars). I’m probably going to—that’s, at least, what the White House announced for resilience in a very broad-based definition that takes weather, drought, heat, floods, cyber, all sorts of types of broad-based hazards, into account for a wide variety of infrastructure. And part of what, I think, Irina and I are trying to do is get state and local governments teed up so that they are ready to and getting ready now to apply for this funding, as we had a lot of conversation in our last meeting was about how this funding is to also serve under resourced and parts of the country that have not had adequate access to these funds and these resources and this infrastructure in the past. So under served and equity are two big words in thinking about how this money is—wants to be implemented. With that, I’m going to hand it over to Stephen to talk about resilience and then we’ll open it up for Q&A. FLYNN: Well, thanks so much, Heidi. And I would like to step in and just a little bit talk about infrastructure, and then the resilience piece of the infrastructure, and also speak to the sustainability and equity issue. And I do this, in part, because I want to suggest that in going after these growing number of federal resources but also private resources that are increasingly out there as a result of ESG funds, thinking about how you embed into those projects sustainability, resilience, and equity, I think, is going to be key. So, with that as the context, opening up here, you know, my interest in infrastructure dates from my time as a Coast Guard officer and watching our, essentially, ports and sea become less than they should be if they’re going to compete on a global scale. We’re seeing in real time the disruption of supply chain, largely as a result of inadequate port infrastructure. But I came, as my gray hair suggests, at the end of the Baby Boom era, and growing up, infrastructure was a source of national pride. But when I look through the lens of my daughter, who came up at sort of the end of the Millennials and the Generation Z folks, think about their childhood. And maybe some of you in this same age—same cohort. So when Christina (sp) was six years old, she watched the World Trade Center towers come down as a result of an act of terrorism in 2001. When she was eight years old, she watched the grid go down in the Midwest and the East as a tree, essentially, went into this power line in Ohio and caused cascading failures across our entire grid system. In 2005, when she was ten years old, she watched a major city drown as a result of a water—a flood water management system fail when Katrina was—Hurricane Katrina was just a little over a Cat One at that point here. In 2007, when she was twelve years old, commuters on the way to Minneapolis home from a rush hour here, the I-35W bridge go out from underneath her. I could keep going on, but you get the point. When I was growing up, we, basically, had infrastructure that was a source of national pride. Our current generations have, literally, watched for the last three decades almost it deteriorate. We’re a bit like a generation who has inherited our grandparents’ mansion and we decided we can’t afford to do the upkeep. People are driving by and saying, hey, it looks like a nice house. But those of us who are living in it know that the roof leaks. The plumbing doesn’t work very well. There’s electrical wiring shot. And we’ve been claiming, as the wealthiest country in the world, that we can’t afford to even maintain it, never mind upgrade it and provide it for our next—for our children and our grandchildren. You know, it was the ingenuity, the treasure, some cases the industry, certainly, in some cases, even the blood of our forbearers who actually built the national infrastructure that we, obviously, have taken for granted. So to actually have a major infrastructure legislation come through this past year, for me, was a high point and, clearly, though, this is a once not just in a generation but once in a potential lifetime opportunity to make the kind of investment we will absolutely need to make if we are going to have, essentially, the critical foundations of our communities, our states, and, ultimately, our nation, essentially, prosper in the face of the kinds of risks that we are seeing play out in the headlines all the time. So this is important stuff, and I’m thrilled that we’ve got an audience here of so many folks in so many states to come and talk about infrastructure—(laughs)—and resilient infrastructure. So with that, let me jump to the slides that’ll frame this a little bit here for us. So if we could jump—put those up. Hopefully, we have our master slide players here. OPERATOR: One moment, please. FLYNN: OK. What I suspect is the reason that has drawn a lot of the interest, though, and all of you being here—while these, hopefully, get put together here—is what Heidi said at the outset, that, you know, with a $1.2 trillion dollar Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we right now have many of the federal bureaucracy working on trying to—on working on developing the requirements. Many of these will be competitive grants, and so the kinds of ways in which you’re going to be most successful as a state or locality in accessing these funds is getting out in front of what these—likely the strings that are going to be attached and those include a focus on sustainability, resilience, and equity. If we can move to the first slide, please. So the big buckets you’re probably aware of, you know, large—a big chunk to roads and bridges, big chunk to electric grid, 66 billion (dollars) to rail, 65 billion (dollars) to broadband, 55 billion (dollars) to water, there’s also about 50 billion (dollars) set aside for resilience. But all these projects, for the competitive portion of them, are going to want the proposals to integrate how they’re going to address issues of zero carbon, how they’re going to address issues of climate change and climate adaptation, how are they going to address resilience to disruptive events, how they are going to address equity. If you’re going to have a most competitive proposal, you’re going to need to, basically, speak to those things. And as Heidi also mentioned, there are 380 programs, right? Congress spread the money around like peanut butter across all the different agencies to do stuff, plus-up programs, but they also created a 132 new programs. So we’re all finding our way. Next up. We should keep our eye on the—(inaudible). While 1.2 trillion (dollars) sounds like a lot—and it is a significant investment—the total need that the—you know, that the American Society of Civil Engineers have identified is that we’re about 2.4 trillion (dollars) shortfall of maintaining what we have, never mind building what we want. So all this money is still not enough. But there is out there a real big number—$53 trillion—in environmental, social, and governance investment. This has been an explosive growth of private sector funding looking for fundable projects that can move the needle on the environment and sustainability and resilience and climate adaptation that address social inequity issues and address governance issues. There is actually more resources out there than there are fundable projects, and I want to lay down here the thought that leveraging the public sector funds, the 1.2 trillion (dollars), or any piece of that that you can get, matching it with ESG funds is, ideally, how you will actually get to true economic development transformation. If you just chase the federal resources, like everybody’s going to be doing, it is still not going to be enough. Thinking about how you leverage it in order to actually get the real resources that are out there—the ESG funds that are available—that’s where, I think, hopefully, your heads will be at here. Next slide, please. What’s animating the resilience imperative is not the prevalence of risk. We’ve always had risk. We’ve always had disasters. What’s unique about the time we’re living in is we’re hyper connected and we’re adding more connections all the time, especially in the world of cyber. What does that translate to? Every connection we make creates a dependency. When we have multiple connections, we get interdependencies. That means that what used to be a local shock now cascades in far more disruptive and destructive ways than used to in the past. We do those connections because we get benefits. We get efficiencies. But we also bring—introduce a greater degree of risk that things will be disrupted, not even directly to us but because we depend on other things, and we’ve seen that most play out, of course, in the pandemic, but we see it play out in the supply chain and—issue. This is a challenge we really have to get out in front of if we’re going to, essentially, prosper in the—in the rest of the 21st century. Next slide. We struggle with this, in part, because—this air shot is a piece of real estate that I spent a lot of time thinking about and worrying about. What you’re seeing here is, on the left of the screen, Liberty International Airport at Newark. Then there are the runways. Then you’re seeing the Jersey Turnpike. Then you’re seeing the railhead—most people don’t pay attention to that—that actually brings the freight up into the Northeast, and next to it is the largest container terminal on the East Coast at Port Elizabeth in Newark. Brilliantly designed by engineers for great efficiency. In a little over a mile you can move a box from a ship to a train, to a truck, to a plane, and any other variation thereof. We made this efficient, but it also creates vulnerability because if I disrupt this one point, you can see how we could have cascading effects. So one of the key pieces that we had to think about here is in any infrastructure we design and upgrade is are we making ourselves vulnerable and would the vulnerability lead to dramatic consequences, and how we think about moving away from our myopic focus on efficiency to one that, basically, recognizes disruption may be the new norm. The next slide. Here’s another legacy problem. We have been, for the last couple of centuries, working on expanding our risk by, essentially, altering nature in ways in which we give ourselves more exposure. What you’re seeing here is my fair city of Boston, and what is in orange is what the Pilgrims saw when they showed up, right, and Boston then was a pretty—almost an island with a little throat that run through Roxbury. Over time, to make the city bigger, we’ve kept filling in, and over generations we’ve filled in a lot of what is now the footprint of the city of Boston. But we did it just a little above high tide because that’s—you know, you don’t want no big hills. You’re just trying to make more space, and this space was a little bit above high tide. Why is that a problem? Next slide. One is we put, virtually, all the industrial landscape we rely on on those low-lying areas. Well, you don’t want to put it on Beacon Hill where people are living. You put it where you created new space, and what you’re seeing here is a map of where the generation stations, the electric substations—the main energy facilities are, and what it would look like if there was seven feet of water. Now, we could get seven feet of water in a couple of days if a storm decided to come up and create storm surge. But we also have some projections that say we could be facing seven feet of storm surge rise in the next—by the end of the century. That’s a higher number but we’ve been conservative so far. Here’s the challenge in thinking about not just resilience but climate adaptation. We actually have stuff that may not be around in twenty or thirty years in a safe place, and if we’re making investments in infrastructure that should last for decades we should be figuring this out now. And this is going to be a key requirement with the projects that you, ultimately, are looking at is is it able to withstand rising sea level risks. In the storm surge that rising sea level exacerbates, and we have a challenge here because we live in many coastal places or on inland waterways that are subjected to flood, and we know, of course, the same is true out west in areas that have vulnerable to wildfire. Next slide. Our core issue is that we have organized ourselves often around assets and sectors when things have become very interdependent, and this quick slide just helps—slide helps to show that everything is connected. If I lose electric power, it disrupts the transportation system, it disrupts water systems. If I lost water, I can’t cool energy. We are siloed often with projects and thinking about how I solve housing, how to solve transport or how do we solve energy, when, in fact, the way our real lives work is they’re interconnected, and successful efforts of building resilience will be one who acknowledge those interdependencies and look at ways for all boats to rise, basically, to address these concurrently. Next slide. Where we see this becoming a here and now issue was probably most dramatically played out in Puerto Rico with Hurricane Maria in September 2017. Hurricanes hitting Puerto Rico is not new. But what made this categorically a catastrophic disaster was that all of the lifeline systems failed simultaneously. When you lost energy, you lost the ability for communications and technology. You didn’t have power for water and irrigation. You’ve lost your ability to—you didn’t have fuel because you couldn’t transport it. The port was disrupted. On it goes. The reality is our risk is from this interdependency and we have to think about projects and infrastructure that address all these lifeline systems at the same time, not the we’re just going to do transport this year and next year we’ll worry about power, and so forth. We have to think about these together. Next up. I—(inaudible)—the case here, though, that this is actually not just woe is us. This actually is something—this slide makes two points. One, increasingly, resilience is going to be a comparative advantage. Those who have a choice are going to gravitate to the places that are most able to handle disruption. There’s not going to be any most risk-free places, and so the places that actually are more resilient are places where companies are going to locate and where people who have the means are going to want to locate, and those that are not are not. But here’s the problem. If we, basically, do it—I think this happened here and the story of Mexico Beach and Florida and Hurricane Michael in 2018, where only one building is resilient. And the brilliance about this new building that was built there here was that they went a little bit above code and the only damage they had with a Category Five making landfall was to their bathroom window while all around them you see a slab where houses were blown away. We know how to build more resilient structures. But you don’t want to end up as an island of resilience in a sea of fragility. Not a very attractive place to live right now with a great house if everything around you is waste. So part of the other key message is we have to think about how we aggregate and look at the resilience around the risk that’s shared in a watershed or is shared in a wild land, that is shared in a coastal region. Next slide. Here, I think, is a core challenge we have at the national level that the bill is—that the law is designed to address but I worry could, in fact, make it even more—could exacerbate this issue. We have an overwhelming lack of capacity in rural America, in American—our Native American tribal nations, with capacity to even be able to plan and to put project proposals together. This has been recently mapped out by a nonprofit called Headwaters Economics. All that orange you see here—the lighter color—that’s all places that have, like, no planners, like, zero and/or a few that are shared across a few towns. How are we going to take the places that are most vulnerable in our country where equity is greatest if they don’t even have the means to plan? And so at the state level, obviously, providing capacity is key, and I’m going to suggest an idea and going to finish up with this about how to do that. Next slide. One of the things that we’ve been working on in New England that I’ve been spearheading an effort is to take this other great resource we have, I would argue, one of the infrastructures that we didn’t identify as critical but we have found in the pandemic is truly is, is our education infrastructure. Try running households without having schools open. But higher education is a tremendous asset as well. What you have in colleges and universities, publics and privates, are cutting-edge expertise to help think about how to deal with these complex risks that we’re facing, to address sustainability, address resilience, climate change, and equity—you know, folks who’ve spent a lot of time, like I have to do, writing proposals. So there’s expertise there. We need a workforce that actually can deliver on this infrastructure, and making sure that we actually have a workforce that can support a green economy, a blue economy, is something that universities and colleges, community colleges, are going to have to do. So let’s get them involved. And the other great thing that they can do is facilitate the cross jurisdictional needs, the multi-sector needs, the private-public needs, so bringing them to bear. And as one illustration of, I think, where this is already showing some fruit, with the funding that the Economic Development Administration had through Build Back Better grants, there were five awards made for phase one grants in New England. Four of those were university led. One at my university, Northeastern, involved Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. I think it was an attractive program to the federal government because it was multi-state and it’s looking at biomanufacturing, creating a cluster. The University of Rhode Island’s led an outstanding proposal for a blue economy tech cluster, and the University of Maine has led one on northern forest bio economy cluster. The University of Connecticut took one in offshore wind. There are other examples around the country. But I highlight this because if we’re thinking about trying to come up with the appropriate projects to address resilience, sustainability, and equity, all our states have an asset in them—our public and private universities, our community colleges—and engaging them is key. So, in conclusion—last slide—and just to give you an example of one we’re trying to work in real time, because to be sort of practical about this and I’m hoping that there are many best practices that are out there, but our challenge for a single rural community is not just they lack capacity, but even the best project isn’t sizable enough to attract sufficient investment. It’s not going to be that attractive for federal and it, certainly, isn’t attractive for major private investors. The key is to think about how you bundle, and so we’ve been looking at three mill towns—Millinocket, East Millinocket, and Madison, Maine. They’re next to rivers where they had paper mills that all went—like so many places in rural America, they’ve been shuttered because of, you know, the way our economy has changed. But they have access to a centuries-old clean energy power source called hydropower, and they have hydroelectric plants and they have wastewater plants that were built for those mills, and repurposing them to think about doing it to create a green economy. And some of the ideas here are taking an airport into solar farm and a biomass power generation center and the—(inaudible)—bark digester here, taking bio material as a way to draw us—these are real projects that have real potential to not just be done in these three mill towns but there are ninety mill towns across New England that, similarly, no longer have the mills but have the hydroelectric sources. Thinking about inventorying those and then bundling even small communities together, and if I can do fifty of those projects now Goldman Sachs is interested because now real money can move to actually make stuff happen. The key is to think about not just infrastructure as replacing the backlog of stuff that’s broken or poorly maintained, but is sparking innovation, the economy that’s going to compete, that’s going to transform our rural communities and states who have been left outside of the boom times that we had over the last fifteen, twenty years. We can do that. But we have to think in a coordinated way, we have to think regionally, and we have to think about not just using public dollars but private dollars. And with that, I hope I’ve done enough to generate the conversation here, and I’ll go back to you, Heidi. CREBO-REDIKER: So, first of all, thank you so much. That was great, and I love the idea of trying to get state and local governments hooked up with some of the local—state and local, public and private universities, that can actually help them put together the types of project proposals that will get their projects funded in a way that needs to be shaped, I think, a little bit differently than we’ve traditionally done. We have a couple of questions already in the Q&A, but the first one I wanted to throw your way, Stephen, is, you know, the whole concept of, like, doing multimodal where you’re thinking about, you know, looking at, you know, how—you know, how—you know, a port, a highway, an airport, and a rail system might work together to actually mitigate some of the resilience risks that are out there, from both being interconnected and from weather and, you know, storm surge or what have you. But the programs that are being rolled out right now we’re still in—from the federal side, they’re, like—they are as siloed as they’ve ever been. You’ve got Department of Transportation broken up into these silos and you’ve got Department of the Interior with, you know, all their silos. You’ve got EPA. I mean, all of these different federal programs are—unfortunately, they’re still as siloed as they were, you know, ever. Is there—you know, what—do you think that they are going to take a positive view of a multi-modal resilience request for grants or is that something where you’re still going to have to go to the Department of Interior to talk about this risk or, you know, to—or Department of Transportation to talk about a port risk? FLYNN: Yeah. My sense here is, you know, it’s going to be hard. Some agencies are going to be better at this than others. The White House has made clear that they want this level of integration as, not surprisingly, that’s almost always been the case. The challenge is getting it down to the program manager level. I think the key here is that it probably means that you are actually going to have to shop for different programs. But my experience has been when you go to the federal players and saying, your money is actually going to be matched by this other grant I’m getting from the Department of Energy, you know, along with what we’re getting from housing and so forth, that’s a bit of a criteria often in these issues here is, you know, we’re putting resources in. Can we get a bigger bang for the buck from it here? Yeah, because—and if you can bring the private sector piece as well, that you have ESG funding, that also is going to be differentiated as well. And it’s not that every one of these is going to work that way, right. It has some level of sophistication. One of the jobs of Mitch Landrieu that—you know, a former mayor of New Orleans—has been charged with by President Biden is just this kind of herding of cats. But, again, the key is—I put those numbers in front. One point two trillion. Woo, it’s got our attention—53 trillion (dollars) in ESG funding—it’s because our—you know, our—those folks in the private sector understand we have to make these investments for resilience, for sustainability, and for addressing equity issues, and those can be leveraged as well. In most cases, without the adequate public investment to seed it, you’re not going to access to the private funding. So, yes, it’s not going to be easy and this is why, again, bringing in—you know, there are going to be some consultants. So what I really worry about here is the places that have been growing in this country have been doing kind of very well—the Floridas and the Texases and the Californias, Virginia, and so forth—they have lots of planners and they’re kind of geared up. Hey, we can chase these resources. The places that have been in the Rust Belt and rural America that have been under served, that can’t even afford a planner—I mean, we’re still talking about this as trying to address equity issues—we could leave them further behind if we don’t find a way to bring the capacity to allow smaller communities, some of the states that are more strapped for capability, to come to the table. And the way I think, in part, that’s done is that collaboration. We’ve done a drive in New England. You know, in New England there’s an old expression here, which is a great neighbor is a fence. You know, so—(laughs)—you know, playing well with each other is not a natural attribute of most New Englanders. But what a reality is here is it doesn’t make sense. When you look at risk—when you want to build the blue economy, you know, doing it in just Portland, Maine, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. You’ve got the whole seaboard there that you can tie it to. So the willingness to look across border as well, I think, is going to be important to look at, you know, addressing the issue in a watershed, addressing the issue in a coherent economic unit, a cluster, that says I’m tying things together and I’m not bound by just one town or one county or one state line. I’m thinking about it more holistically. That’s the key to building more resilient communities and it’s going to take a nimbleness. But the resources are there. So that should give us, hopefully, the impetus to push the envelope. CREBO-REDIKER: So, I think, Pennsylvania was actually very effective in getting—in pulling a lot of bridge projects rebuilding bridges across the state in order to get grant—federal grant and loan money. So it’s, like, I think, that is absolutely the way to go. If you work—to the extent that you can make, you know, one small project a very big project when you approach for funding, I think, that’s—that could be a very compelling application. You started with Florida on your last response. Mary Alford is a commissioner in Florida, who asked about why no—you know, because the sums are so significant, and 1.2 trillion (dollars) is a very large number but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what the actual needs. It’s a good down payment. And so her question is the National Infrastructure Bank, which I have a long history personally with, and it did not make it into the bipartisan bill. It got dropped at the very last minute. It is a great idea. The one thing that I, you know, was—I’m consoled with the fact that there are a number of loan programs that exist in both. The Department of Transportation has TIFIA loans that do the same type of—it’s actually the whole—the Warner National Infrastructure Bank bill was based on the TIFIA loan program for transportation, which has been augmented in terms of the types of modes of transportation that it will fund. There’s also a huge amount of loan funding, government federal funds that are cheap and available from the Department of Energy. So they have huge lending authority. In fact, there’s a guy there named Jigar Shah who runs the loan program, and they’re—you know, they have—you know, they are open for business and they have their act together and they’re good to go. It’s not a bank. It’s not consolidated with other types of infrastructure but it’s there. Same thing with rail. We have, you know, big lending programs that are available for rail. They’re complicated, and it goes back to Stephen’s point where you probably want to go and connect with a university or, you know, someone who has done—who’s worked through the loan programs before to figure out how to access those funds. I am disappointed that there’s no infrastructure bank, but it’s just not going to happen this time around because that was the big shot. So we’ll see— FLYNN: I’ve been advocating for that for years as well and, I mean, it’s, clearly, the kind of model that we need. But, you know, this—again, 1.2 trillion (dollars) is important, right. It really is an impetus. But there are ways to think creatively about using those funds and we need to, and I think we do need to start demonstrating it as a down payment. It’s like the point I tried to make at the outset, right. We’ve taken our infrastructure for granted and it’s undermining our competitiveness, and we’re seeing it play out right now in the supply chain realm. You know, people took largely—(inaudible)—grant that included most of the private sector that the physical mechanisms for moving goods matters. It’s not just the contractual ability to go anywhere on the planet and find the lowest priced product and be able to get it just in time to when you need it. What made that possible is the conveyor belt of a—an extraordinary intermodal transportation system that became highly concentrated because of the rewards of efficiency, and our challenge about having 40 percent of all the nation’s cargo come into just the Port of L.A. and Long Beach is that that’s where most of the distribution centers and the important Alameda Corridor with the railheads and, of course, a large consumer market as well. And you can go to another port to move a shipment but there’s not any of that shore side infrastructure. And so we really need to say—and this is a key element of resilience and applies in the energy realm as well, is to think more in terms of networks that can be disaggregated. On dark days they can, basically, island themselves and operate like a micro grid that can be networked together and provide same levels of efficiency that often the big mainframe systems that we have today do. So in the case of the maritime it is short sea shipping, infrastructure that allows you not just to stay in a congested urban area but rail that goes you into the interior. We would then have access to surface transportation that can move it where it needs to go. This is the kind of investment, you know, that our forbearers made when they built the inland waterway system and the canals that we rely on that now people just sort of use as bike paths, right. That was the core of our economy and there’s still need for those capabilities. But it’s got to be clean energy if we’re going to be in a better place, and we’ve got to make sure that there’s affordable housing. The key is that we have to be able to talk about infrastructure in ways that provide value to our—you know, to citizens to make sure that they’re willing to make the investment but also that is comprehensive if we’re going to get this resilience outcome. CREBO-REDIKER: So we have a question from Patrick Walsh—Patrick, I don’t know where you’re from because it doesn’t say it on the Q&A—but how do we get legislators and other policymakers to care about resiliency when most are thinking short term? Many are looking for port projects that will get them reelected, and somebody else chimed in that, as Patrick said above, resiliency must be long term. New York City Waterfront Resiliency Committee is working for New York City. Maybe you can approach that and then connect it with a later question from Mary Alford—how is ESG funding different from the National Infrastructure Bank? FLYNN: Well, mainly, from my time at the Council on Foreign Relations, I’ve had the privilege of testifying thirty-two times and I think it is now before Congress. I can say they are very slow learners. (Laughs.) I can’t tell you exactly how to do it. I’ve been sort of trying to pound it for a long time. But here’s, I think, an element of the resilience piece, that story that needs to be thought—you know, better captured. We’re seeing with the more frequency of disasters and the intensity of disasters that the cost is just—is unsustainable. You know, the degree to which we have multibillion-dollar disasters, you know, has exploded over the last two decades, and almost every one of them now is, it’s in no small part for that case I made before about because we’re so hyper connected that a disaster will have far more destructive and costly consequences. And so the investment in mitigation, you know, ideally—you know, the old ratio is, like, one to six. Every dollar you put in will save that resource relative to the cost when disasters happen, as they will with greater frequency. So there is both a near-term need because now we’re seeing it every year, every season, play out on the wildfire risk, the flood risk, a hurricane risk, the tornado risk, that says we’ve got to up our game and be able to mitigate these more effectively so we can avoid these catastrophic losses. At the same time we’re making long-term investments in infrastructure, every one of those investments should embed a resilience best practices into them and sustainability best practices. You know, how to change—you know, it’s this chicken and egg, of course, challenge here in part. If citizens aren’t really that engaged around this then, you know, the elected leaders often reflect that, and it kind of goes both ways. I think it’s key for all of us is to raise the awareness of the value of our infrastructure in terms of what it does for us. People often only see it when it’s not there anymore. (Laughs.) So you have to do a much better job telling the story of why it is these investments need to be made, and that’s why I shared that story at the outset, again, of, hey, when I grew up this was the way it was. I mean, we’ve got to find a way to make this more relatable. But this is an investment in our competitiveness. You know, every time there’s a major disruption folks evaluate where they want to live and how they want to invest, and, increasingly, they’re going to look for the places that are better able to handle that risk. And so if you are a place that is playing footloose and fancy free, this is not a sustainable strategy in the kind of disruptive world we’re in. You know, it does require people acknowledging some facts of life like climate change is happening and the frequency, intensity of these events are one offs or acts of God that we have no control over. You know, we often talk about disasters as—almost as unknowable. Actually, we know a lot—(laughs)—and what we know most and are able to do increasingly is to model how disasters will play out on things that we value. And then if people say, I’m still willing to live with the risk, well, we’re a democracy. They’d be willing to do that. But we could do a much better job, I think, of showing folks where the water is going to go, where this is—what it’s going to disrupt, and when you lose those power you lose hospitals. You lose maternity wards. You lose, you know, your ability for your water to flush your toilets. You know, you make things in a much more understandable way and get—and help to drive that message in that, hopefully, leads to the investment. CREBO-REDIKER: So, Patrick Walsh, who asked the question originally, is from Massachusetts, from the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory. So he can reach out to you directly, Steve, right? FLYNN: I would welcome that. (Laughs.) CREBO-REDIKER: OK. So, question from—the next question from Wayne Domke, who is a trustee in—(audio break). Is research in fusion included in these infrastructure funds? My understanding from the Department of Energy’s loan program is that they’re actually looking for applications right now. I would just—I would go and check. Stephen, maybe you know. I’m pretty sure that they’re looking for proposals to fund fusion at the Department of Energy. FLYNN: Yeah. I’ll just say that, you know, virtually all the agencies’ research budgets have been plussed up and they are very much driven by you need to address equity. You need to address climate change. You need to help, you know. And so this, again, goes to, potentially, partnering with colleges and universities because they’ve got to have more competitive proposals, if they’re partnering with the community, if they’re partnering with the state, if they’re partnering with, you know, an infrastructure manager, the Department of Transportation, and so forth. Everybody wins, and a key is don’t waste your time, you know, talking to professors like me. Go to the presidents. I mean, governors can get presidents anytime they want, and presidents are mayors of their own cities. I mean, most of them are, you know, in a pretty—they get a lot of resources that they command. And a neat outcome, actually, of COVID, as terrible as it’s been, is it drove higher education to have to come together. Folks that often were competing with each other, you know, now had to talk with each other. They had to come up with common plans of how to deal with, you know, students, vaccinations, and all the rest of it here. And what we were able to do and, particularly, in Connecticut and Rhode Island was to leverage that cooperation that was already there amongst the leaders of these institutions, the presidents, and saying, hey, can you work with the state to support recovery? But that’s just an ask. I mean, really, if you ask the leadership of these institutions they’re vested in this, and I think it can give you more capacity than maybe you hadn’t thought of in the past. CREBO-REDIKER: So I’m just going to remind everybody, you’re welcome to ask questions live. If you raise your hand, we can get—we’ll get you live asking your question. You don’t have to just use the chat, even though the chat’s fine. Mary Alford has the question about how is ESG funding different from the National Infrastructure Bank, and I think, given the slide that you have, you might want to take a stab at that. FLYNN: Sure. The core here is that we’re seeing a generational shift in investment where, particularly, you know, the Millennials and the Generation Y are going, you know, I don’t just want a return on my investment. I want to make sure we’re doing some good. You’re seeing more and more pressures on boards of directors, on companies, that they have to demonstrate they’re not causing harm, that they’re advancing equity goals, they’re advancing environmental sustainability goals, and so forth. And so big players—the Goldman Sachs of the world—have large funds that are set up that have to go to projects that actually can demonstrably move the needle on helping community—you know, helping to advance sustainability goals, equity goals, climate change goals. So if you’re able to demonstrate that a project—it has to, of course, be something that has a return for the investor. But if you’re able to demonstrate that the project is, in fact, going to improve along those lines of, you know, the environment, like a climate adaptation project would satisfy an E in ESG funds, if it’s going to improve the community’s resilience and improve its social capital that are under served. The three communities that I highlighted in Maine, these are very small towns, but they’re all in opportunity zones. These are tax-deferred zones that the federal government created out of the 2017 tax act that, again, a lot of rural communities were not well positioned to take advantage of. But there is more capital in opportunity—qualified opportunity funds than there are fundable projects. So bottom line here is it is about interacting with key private investors. But when you’re looking at the larger funds, again, you know, you’re not going to hit them up for 3 million (dollars) or 5 million (dollars). You know, they’re going to want to see, you know, a hundred million dollars. Now we can talk. But for small communities, you can get there by bundling childcare centers, by bundling a series of climate adaptation projects across multiple communities. Then you can get these large investment players to come to the table. And, potentially, in the state economic development side, of course, if you’re leveraging, hey, we’re putting public resources to do the things that don’t necessarily have a good return on investment but are requisite for, you know, being able to broadband, we need broadband in order to get, you know, workforce housing. I can’t get workers if they got to show up and there’s no broadband. So, hey, we’re going to use the federal funds to support that. Now you can invest in workforce housing. It can be located near this new clean energy project, which is going to be, you know, manufacturing bio—you know, bio forest goods and that kind of thing that, again, can fit on that—check these boxes off on ESG. That’s how you have to be thinking, I think, to access those enormous resources. And it’s doable, and the private players will help you with that. But scale is important. CREBO-REDIKER: And just to go back—on the National Infrastructure Bank versus grants and all the loan programs versus grants, the loans are meant to be repaid. So even if they’re—you know, if they’re coming from any of the federal government pots, if they are loan programs there has to be some commercial viability that they’re going to be repaid in one way, shape, or another. I’m going to go live to Kyle Jacob Murphy with a live question, and if you could just tell everyone where you’re from and what you do before you ask, that would be helpful. Q: Certainly. You already said my name for me. Thank you very much. I am a paid intern with Senator Runestad in the Michigan Senate and I was kind of just sent here to see what was up. I really like it so far, but I had a couple questions about everything I’ve seen so far. So in terms of, like, when we say resilient, do you mean how to—can withstand the disasters of the next fifty years, a hundred years, or resilient as in just won’t fail on us? And—oh, you can answer that one first. FLYNN: Sure. I’d be happy to try to take that on. So it really depends. If you really think about baking in resilience you’re looking at its overall life of—the protected life of—if it’s a physical asset—like, you’re talking about, say, a bridge, right, and you’re saying I built this bridge and expect it to be around for eighty years, then you’re looking at risk over that likelihood over those eighty years and you want to design it so that it can, ideally, mitigate the risk, that if the events that you think are going to happen would lead it to catastrophic failure, right? You’ve built it for eighty years. You want it—and want it to last that lifespan. There may be more extreme events than you can design for. Under those scenarios here, you also want to have a capacity to recover from the event. So some of the big thinking—I, actually, have a colleague who is a professor of civil and bioengineering who developed this twenty years ago, essentially, taking the cost of electric fuse and putting it into the structures of buildings so that it takes most of the energy when the ground moves with an earthquake is dissipated into these replaceable members of the building, and so the building can be quickly put back to service. So these are some of the designs that are out there. The challenge has been no building code has required this so there’s no demand for the innovation. And so the public—the insurance sector and the private-public sector have to work together to, essentially, think this through. But the key is you’re looking at the lifecycle—the expected lifespan of the investment and you’re saying is it going to be able to perform over that lifespan, and have I adequately embedded things that, ideally, mitigates the risk that it will fail during that lifespan. And so some things that are much shorter term you don’t need to do as much. Some things that are not as connected as other things you don’t have to do as much. The key is looking at the—doing this consequence analysis as a part of the cost benefit of making the appropriate mitigation measures. CREBO-REDIKER: And would it be fair to say if it’s a critical piece of infrastructure that is connected that the cyber vulnerability is something that would be needed to be solved for sort of ASAP? It’s not one of those things that’s just, like, planned out— FLYNN: Absolutely. Now— CREBO-REDIKER: —the next fifty years we care about it, but, no, it’s actually, like, right now? FLYNN: Exactly. CREBO-REDIKER: OK. FLYNN: As I highlighted, we’ve gone to the Internet of Things, really, just as early—I mean, as late as 2007, not that long ago, we didn’t—had hardly no physical infrastructure tied to the net. You know, we did it for email, you know, and web pages as they were being developed. Now we’ve taken most of the physical infrastructure we have and we, essentially, put sensors and we put controls, increasingly, that are accessible by the web. So as we saw, of course, with the Colonial Pipeline last year—a bit of critical infrastructure. If you don’t have fuel, life is really hard for lots of things. You can disrupt it not by an act of sabotage but you can do it by a cyber physical attack, taking out the cyber means for doing that. And so one of the priorities in the significant funding in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act for cyber investments, but it’s the cyber physical piece that, really, is something that I worry a lot about and it’s something that we have to be thinking about right now. We rushed to embed cyber infrastructure because it gave us efficiencies. It gave us, again, visibility. We used to have to send a human being out to check the pipeline. Now I can monitor with the sensor and do it from my smart phone. Cool, except now somebody who’s got, you know, mischievous or a nefarious reason wants to do some harm to that, same control, and cause real problems. So we’ve got risk and we do have to, in fact, think about how we invest in that. And again, the cost of not doing this is enormous. We’re seeing it play out in the headlines almost every day, and so this is something we can’t afford not to do and that’s how we have to, again, talk about it. And, by the way, when we come on the other side of that, when we build things to be more resilient they’ll do less harm to our environment. They will be—they will, ultimately, assure better service and function that will allow us to be a more productive and competitive economy. CREBO-REDIKER: So the—just thinking about one of the questions that was asked earlier about short-termism of legislators, the good thing about the whole resilience bucket of funds is that it is new money that is not—it’s not the way that we traditionally have gone and just accessed pots of money from state and local—for state and local governments from the federal government in the past. So you can augment. If you’re a local legislator, you should be happy about augmenting the amount of funds that you bring back if you can access a bigger pot. We have Jon Thompson from Sedona, Arizona, with a question. We sometimes hear an estimate of how much it will cost to update all of our critical infrastructure. But has anyone calculated the annual cost if we were able to keep it updated indefinitely? And since we seem to keep adding new infrastructure systems while rarely retiring existing ones, how is any of this sustainable? And, Jon, we all volunteer to sacrifice to come to Sedona to actually help you with this issue. (Laughter.) It’s, like, one of the most beautiful places on the planet. FLYNN: Yeah. I mean, we are going to have to—I, roughly, put things into three buckets in terms of how we have to think about it and often these get merged and confused. There’s a sustainability bucket that’s, largely, about let’s stop doing harm. All right. Let’s stop doing the things that we know are going to contribute to risk, and we know that if we continue, essentially, to pump CO2 into our—you know, in our atmosphere, that’s going to be it. So things that will get to carbon zero or things that prevent further harm. Resilience is, largely, about designing for whatever we were doing we haven’t done enough of it and we’re going to be facing—even if we went to carbon zero today, we have decades of still—of consequence with more frequent, more intense, weather events and so forth here. That’s just what’s happened to Mother Nature. Regardless of its source, that’s where we are. And so how do we design in that reality? How do we operate in the reality? And then there’s the big climate adaptation piece, especially as applies to sea level rise. I mean, the fact is some of the places that we’re in are not going to be sustainable decades from now. And so making an investment today that’s supposed to be around for decades that’s going to be underwater in thirty years or fifty years or sixty years, that’s not very smart. We have to then think longer term. And so I put those three buckets because there’s, clearly, things that we can do right now to ameliorate risk around the sustainability side and, actually, there’s a lot that’s out there. That’s probably where most effort has been put. The resilience is a relatively newer space. But as there is a lot—as I tried to articulate in this short time we’ve had together here, there’s a lot around how to design for resilience at a(n) asset level and then there’s also how to do it as a part of regional and urban planning to deal with risks like watershed flooding and so forth here. Architects are doing this work, engineers are doing this work, and there’s—the scientists are providing best modeling tools. Network scientists are allowing us to understand connections and (interconnections ?). We are a lot smarter about how to actually do this in measurable ways to then solve the cost benefit analysis than we thought of. But we’re also going to face the very hard choices that some of the infrastructure we have, some of the places where we live, may not be sustainable, and that’s going to require, you know, some retreat of investments there and making plussed-up investments in other places, and those are the hardest decisions politically for us to have to have a dialogue about. But we need to start having that conversation sooner versus later because it’ll take you a long time to do the adaptation at a time when we see—you know, again, those sea level rise, the seven-foot that I showed you in Boston—the thing is, is that if you have—storm surge just pushes that amount of water in the storm so it could be ten feet of water that shows up. But it’ll recede. But as we keep adding up more water then, obviously, that becomes a nuisance tide. Every high tide, basically, becomes that flood event, and at some point stuff are, literally, underwater. So, you know, this isn’t going away. We’ve got to figure out how we step up to it. But there’s opportunity here as well. If we get this right—the rest of the planet is also faced with this. So I’m glad this is sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and I run the Global Resilience Institute, is because these are shared challenges that every community and every part—every continent is facing, and those who develop the best practices are going to be, potentially, in a place to export those as a part of a successful economy. But, again, you will also attract people to invest and live in your areas if you get this right, and woe to you if you don’t. CREBO-REDIKER: OK. So we have a whole two minutes left. I’m going to run through, quickly, Mary Alford has posted a number of good links and a best practice in the chat. And, Mary—I’m sorry, Alison Alter from Austin is a councilmember in the office of the mayor—of city council of Austin has a question. More information on how ESG funding might work. How should we think about accessing that funding and to do what kind of projects? And then I will answer Steve Carrow’s question. Share a link on the best summaries of and how to understand the IIJA. I’m going to put something that Mitch Landrieu has drawn together that’s the first stab at that and I’ll post that in the chat while Steve is addressing the ESG question. FLYNN: Yeah, and I guess I would probably—just as you run down to the time here, please reach out to me. I’d be happy to help you make some connections. I’ve been having these conversations with some of the major ESG funders and they’re some of the household words you know on Wall Street. But there also are real opportunities—pension funds, others, that are really moving into the space. But having, essentially, fundable projects, projects that have some return and which you can measure that it actually is going to improve sustainability goals, resilience goals, that can actually account for and be managed well on the governance side. Those will be key. There still will have to be return to investment again. This is not just purely grant money. This is—but there’s opportunity. Again, what I really want to encourage here is to think much more creatively, not just chasing, you know, this pot of gold at every individual rainbow, but, really, think about we’re at this unique time in our generation where you have actually a surge of private funding recognizing this is real and we have to do something about it, and for the first time in forty years real federal resources starting to flow to address this issue. And shame on us if we don’t get this right—you know, if we don’t do more. And, again, that message is, well, we really have to be looking out for the communities who have limited means: our Native American tribal nations, our small rural communities, states that have not been growing so don’t have many planners. Let’s make sure we do this in an equitable way, and a way to do that, in part, is by being good neighbors, reaching out in a big city and partnering with other smaller cities that don’t have those means, and then bundling efforts together. Not every man for himself, zero sum. That’s not going to work. We’re not going to get to a better place unless we work in a much more collaborative and cooperative way, and we’ll have strengthened our civil society and our civic society if we do that. There’s a lot of opportunity here to right some of the things that have been going not very well in our country if we do it right. And I want to applaud and thank all of you who are on the frontlines in states and locals managing these issues day to day despite limited resources, exhausted because of COVID. Thank you for coming here today to have this conversation with us. And if there’s ways that I can be helpful, I would, you know, welcome that—[email protected], and Irina and Heidi can connect you as well. CREBO-REDIKER: So I just posted the bipartisan infrastructure law guidebook on how to access and what all the programs are in the chat. If you can’t see it for some reason, I think Irina can send it out to the whole group. And then I’m going to turn this over to Irina to close out. Stephen, thank you so much. Everybody, thank you for joining today. I hope this is helpful. And over to Irina. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, both Heidi and Steve. Appreciate it. And I just want to wrap up and say we will send a link to this discussion and the transcript. We’ll include Steve’s email address and the link that Heidi just posted so you don’t have to scramble to get it from the chat. You can follow Dr. Flynn with the Global Resilience Institute on Twitter at @Resilience_NU and Heidi at @HeidiRediker. And, as always, please go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis, and email us, please, at [email protected] with ideas on other topics you want us to cover and how else we can support you in the very important work that you are doing. So thank you all again for being with us today and, again, thank you, Heidi and Steve. (END)
  • Cybersecurity
    Defining “Reasonable” Cybersecurity: Lessons From the States
    Understanding the state of cybersecurity in private companies is essential to forming a legal standard of reasonable cybersecurity at the state and local level.
  • Economic Crises
    Inflation and U.S. Economic Outlook
    Play
    Roger W. Ferguson Jr., Steven A. Tananbaum distinguished fellow for international economics at CFR, discusses the U.S. economy and factors contributing to current rates of inflation.    TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today’s Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. We’re delighted to have participants from forty-four U.S. states and territories with us. Thank you for taking the time to join us for this discussion, which is on the record. CFR: It’s an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher focusing on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics. Today we are pleased to have Roger Ferguson Jr. with us. Dr. Ferguson is the Steven Tananbaum Distinguished Fellow for International Economics at CFR. He’s also the immediate past president and CEO of the financial services firm TIAA. Dr. Ferguson previously served as vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, and his recent work has focused on inflation, labor, and supply chains, and recently launched project on the Future of Capitalism. So, Dr. Ferguson, thank you very much for being with us today. Last year brought record economic growth and falling unemployment in the United States, but now we are seeing rising inflation—in fact, the inflation report just dropped today—supply chain issues, and labor shortages. Can you talk about the causes of this and give us your thoughts on the U.S. economic outlook? FERGUSON: Thank you very much for inviting me, and I look forward to this conversation. And, by the way, my intention is not to give you a forty-five-minute speech but, rather, short opening comments followed by questions and answers, which will be moderated. And so as we gather here today, the question on everyone’s mind, that’s supplied by the opening, is the interaction across three different dimensions: one is basic economic supply and demand that all of us learned in Ec 1 or Ec 10. The second component with that, though, is the macroeconomic impact around growth and, most recently, inflation. Which then leads to the third question, which is monetary policy and policy reactions and what that might portend for the whole society. So let me start at point one, which is around the basic economics of what is going on here. So what’s going on here is we’re struggling with a supply-and-demand imbalance, not just in the U.S. but globally. This is the natural outcome of the fact that the economy globally closed in a very synchronized fashion, literally within a couple of months, and has been struggling to open different parts of the world, different sectors, at different paces, and so supply and demand are still looking to find the kind of balance that we normally learn about in economics classes, and the way that happens is by having price adjustments. So what do I talk about when I talk about supply and demand? The growth that we’ve experienced in the U.S. and globally has been relatively unbalanced by historical standards. It is still largely focused on goods. Demand in the U.S. has been measured to be about—as much as 18 percent above trend, and far less so in services, until recently when we all were reluctant to go to restaurants; we didn’t go to movies; we didn’t go to amusement parks; we didn’t, you know, consume services that define so much of the economy. And it is this imbalance between goods and services that is driving the uptick in inflation we’re seeing. So let me give you some examples of what we talked—and by the way, in Economics 10 what we learned when we had that kind of imbalance in demand is something that’s called cost-push inflation. I’ll come back to describe that in a minute. So what are some of the places where we see this imbalance? Well, famously, in the newspapers, we know there’s a chip shortage. That has had a big impact rippling through other parts of the economy, including, famously, the automobile sector. In fact, there was an analysis earlier that automobile companies have lost something more than 200 billion (dollars) in lost sales last year from the inability to produce new cars because of an absence of chips. We also have seen very much a similar kind of factor when it comes to labor markets. By some estimates, our country’s experienced nearly 2 million in what we call excess retirements, and there’s a notable decline in labor force participation to historically low levels among women and some minorities. Labor force participation has jumped back just a little bit, but we still recognize there’s quite an imbalance between supply and demand for labor as individuals have retired. We also see sporadic shortfalls in labor due to COVID, which I’ll come back and talk about. And so these supply-and-demand imbalances for goods are also showing up in the major input into goods production, service production—or one of the major inputs, which is obviously labor force participation. Some other examples from last year—I don’t have new ones from this year: We estimated that last year nearly 1.2 million people with children under the age of eighteen were out of the labor force and hadn’t been looking for work due to the pandemic and childcare issues, and that’s nearly four times the number of people who would have reported that pre-pandemic. And we also know that these various forces, labor force imbalances, are showing up in supply chain challenges. As one example, we know there’s a shortage of truck drivers. There’s an estimate that we’re probably about eighty thousand truck drivers short. Now, there’s an annual turnover of truck drivers that is very high, so the inability to replace truck drivers becomes even more difficult as people choose to leave that profession. Now, this has played into something that came up very recently which is CEO confidence. CEOs have become gradually less confident about the outlook. There’s an index of CEO confidence that went from about eighty-five to about fifty-six. That’s quite a dramatic drop, and anything above fifty is a positive reading, but by definition, fifty-six is less positive than eighty-five. And what’s been driving this decline in CEO confidence has been exactly the factors that I’ve talked about: labor force participation, supply chain issues, and the results of inflation. So now let me take—let me go to, then, that point, which is—I started with supply-and-demand imbalances as being the fundamental problem, uneven reopening of the economy impacted by omicron and earlier versions of the virus. That is clearly now playing through into inflation. This morning we saw, you know, eye-popping-headline inflation numbers. The total CPI showed a growth of 7.5 percent year over year; that’s the fastest rate of price increases in roughly forty years or so. And the major increases there were in food, electricity, and housing or shelter, as measured by the CPI. And those numbers are really quite startling. The energy index increased almost 1 percent over the month, with increases in electricity being particularly high, offset slightly by increases—(much lower ?) increases in gasoline and natural gas. Now, economists tend not to focus on that headline number, the so-called overall CPI that’s at 7.5 (percent). We tend to look at the core index, which is inflation minus food and energy, but even there, yearly inflation ran at around 6 percent, which was, again, very high, the largest twelve-month increase since, again, August 1982, so it had been forty years. And some of the things that were driving that, back to what I said about shortages, were cars and trucks, medical care, and apparel were some of the items that had the largest increases over the month, and so we see that these increases are really broadly dispersed throughout the economy, but some areas are particularly hot, so to speak, and those are areas that are in many ways—few exceptions—associated with the kinds of supply-and-demand imbalances that I’ve been talking about, and we can delve more deeply into the report here, if you’d like. So now that takes me to the third point, which is—or point 2a, which is around inflation—around growth. So we’ve seen inflation has picked up. What has been very interesting is that the GDP growth rate has remained relatively stable and relatively high, which is surprising given the sporadic comings and goings of individuals in and out of the labor force and those various tightnesses and bottlenecks that we’ve talked about. So what’s the implication of that? It says that the U.S. economy and more globally our economies are becoming more resilient to the impact of this virus, which is effectively good news that we can continue to grow in a more predictable manner, which has not been true in the first year or so of this crisis, so there is a little bit of a silver lining in this cloud, which is that the economy does appear to be fairly robust and resilient to the shocks and shortages that are occurring. Let me go to the last point, which is, what will all this mean for financial markets and for monetary policy? And I’ll start with monetary policy. Monetary policy is, as you know, the setting of interest rates done by the Federal Reserve in our country, other central banks around the world, the Bank of England, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, et cetera. Almost all central banks right now are in the process of tightening their monetary policy because all central banks, almost all, are confronting this kind of inflation dynamic that were talked about. This—in the U.S. the Federal Reserve has already started the process of unwinding some of the stimulus that it put into place for the crisis. Those who follow this know the Federal Reserve has been buying U.S. Treasury notes and bonds and bills and also has been buying mortgage-backed securities. They’re slowing down that purchasing, the pace of that purchasing. That is called moving from quantitative easing to a phrase that’s called quantitative tightening. So that’s the first step towards the Fed beginning to adjust its interest rates. The second step will be the actual adjustment of interest rates, and most economists and others expect the Fed to adjust its rates at its March meeting, which is March 15th and 16th, if memory serves me, roughly mid-March, and there’s an expectation that the Fed might raise rates at the subsequent three or four meetings during the course of this year, which would be quite a pace of interest rate hikes from the Fed. There are some debates as to whether or not the Fed will actually, you know, do even more than that. Normally the Fed increases rates by twenty-five basis points. A basis point is one one-hundredth of a percentage point. In exceptional times, they might increase rates by fifty basis points and so there’s quite a bit of debate now as to whether or not this inflation reading from today will incent them, encourage them to either do more rate tightening or do it at higher levels. And all that has played into the stock market and this will be the place where I end, and what we’ve seen is quite a bit of volatility in the stock market as investors try to understand what is likely to happen and, frankly, try to figure out how to avoid being harmed financially by a rise in rates engineered by the Federal Reserve. Some sectors would do better than others. But I think the biggest concern is whenever the Federal Reserve tries to do what it’s doing, which is raise rates to slow inflation but not slow the economy, that’s called trying to achieve a soft landing, and that has been very, very difficult historically for the Fed to maneuver. And so let me wrap up by just summarizing what I said. Basically I made three points. First, the fundamental challenge that we’re dealing with here is supply-and-demand imbalances that have emerged as the economy is trying to reopen, the global economy and the U.S. economy, and we find shortages here or there, we find an absence of workers where we need them, and so things are very sort of ragged when it comes to supply and demand working together. The way that normally gets resolved is by price increases called cost-push inflation, and indeed, we are seeing just that: relatively high amounts of inflation, not everywhere and in some pockets much more subtle than in other pockets. And the third point I made is that the Federal Reserve and other central banks are responding to this as they normally would by doing what’s called normalizing rates—i.e., gradually raising rates, reducing some of the excess support that they gave the economy, sort of this quantitative easing, and that has led to a great deal of market volatility and uncertainty. So that’s my opening remarks and I hope that has been enough to enlighten and hopefully stimulate conversation. So let me turn it back over to you. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Roger. That was fantastic. Let’s go to all of you now for your questions, comments. We want to hear from you. If you click on the raised-hand icon and I will call on you and ask you to unmute yourself and say who you are. And you can also put your question in the Q&A box, write it there, and if you do that, please tell us who you are so it gives us context as to—gives us your context and it will help place, situate the response. OK, so I’m going to go first to Michael Matias (sic). Q: Thank you. Matthias, but that’s all right. My question, sir, and I appreciate your summary, is what—to what degree do you think that the infusion of the—on the fiscal side, the infusion of the amount of capital that’s gone into the economy in kind of a—somewhat of a graduated one-time event? How much does that affect structurally the interest rates, and what do you foresee as that money winds its way through the economy? FERGUSON: Michael— FASKIANOS: Michael, can you give us—tell us who you are? “Matthias.” (Laughs.) Q: (Laughs.) Yeah. Michael Matthias; I’m the city manager of a small city just south of Seattle called Des Moines in Washington state. And my background’s economics, Cambridge University, so Keynesian all the way. (Laughs.) FERGUSON: (Laughs.) And that sounded like a Keynesian question. So Michael, great question, if I call you by your first name. And as a trained economist and Keynesian, you fully understand that the fiscal policy, the stimulus that was put into place certainly would have had an impact in driving aggregate demand. Now, it’s important to know that the amount of stimulus that was put in, that was a very, very large amount, certainly played a role in keeping us from having a recession at the very beginning, a deep recession, at the very beginning of this crisis, or I should say, a deep and prolonged recession because we did have a very short one and a very rapid recovery, but it was not prolonged. And so that was the benefit of a fiscal stimulus. Now, we also know that we had a few packages and along the way what that meant was individuals started having more money in their bank accounts than they were used to having; that undoubtedly created some extra demand that may not have occurred otherwise for some of these areas. And so, you know, to some degree, what we’re seeing is the natural result of long-time fiscal and monetary support, which has increased demand probably in certain areas. So it would be impossible to say that none of this is attributed to fiscal policy, but I think we have to be careful about over-attributing only to fiscal policy because a fair amount of this has to do with labor force participation changing quite dramatically, either temporary or permanently, because of the health crisis and the aging of population; some of it has to do with shortages in particular areas. And so this one is an unusual combination of the usual things that you and I would have learned in school—you know, too much money chasing too few goods, the classic definition of inflation—and the unique circumstance of an uneven reopening of the global economy and the backdrop of health crises that have had impacts in different parts of the labor force. And so, you know—and the weighting across those will be something I think is debated for a period of time, but it is the complexity of this situation that makes it very, very difficult for the Fed to figure out exactly how to moderate its interest rates. One last point I’d make, and you’ve implied this: the fact that fiscal stimulus was put in last year and not being put in this year will immediately have an impact in terms of slowing the economy and, again, making it much more difficult for the Fed to calibrate its interest rates just right. So I hope that’s helpful and responsive to your question. FASKIANOS: Great. So I’m going to go next to a written question from Steven Rausch, who’s the deputy city clerk in Niceville, Florida: How long do you expect it will take for changes in the Federal Reserve interest rate to take effect on deposits and debt? FERGUSON: Great question. So certainly will take effect on interest rates, deposit rates relatively directly. That is, you know, one of the so-called transmission mechanisms and it’s one that moves, you know, pretty quickly. Anyone who has a floating rate loan of any sort will see the change in those interest rates pretty quickly, according to the terms of those loans. And that will certainly be true in the marketplace overall. As an example, the ten-year Treasury, which has had an interest rate of 1.5 percent, 1.6 percent, 1.7 percent for a period of time, sometimes even a little lower, has recently spiked up to 1.8, 1.9 (percent)—I think over 2 percent on the ten-year Treasury recently. And that Treasury rate plays in directly to how various interest rates are reset, if they are floating-rate instruments, floating-rate mortgages. So we are already starting to see an impact just in the expectation of rates rising and that will have an impact more broadly. I would say that banks are likely to be slower to raise deposit rates, what they pay investors or savers, than they are to raise the interest rate they charge those who borrow, because this will be a chance for all banks to increase their profitability. So those who are saving with your bank, you may find that you’re getting pretty slow rise in interest rates just as the interest rates being charged as a borrower might go up more quickly. So we’re seeing some of that already, already occurring. When it comes to debt, I think what we’re going to see is some companies, some individuals are slower to add more debt than they would have been in the past because the price of debt certainly goes up, and that’s also certainly been true of corporations where we’ve had record amounts of corporate debt issuance in the past to take advantage of these very low interest rates; most expect that to slow down going forward. So I hope that’s responsive to your question. FASKIANOS: Great. And Steven Rausch is also the finance director of the city. FERGUSON: OK. Good, Steve. FASKIANOS: So let’s go next to raised hand from Beth Schlangen. Please tell us who you are. Q: Beth Schlangen, Benton County commissioner in Minnesota. And my question is dealing with the—since we’re in an imbalance of supply and demand, can we get our focus onto the supply and get the supplies that we needed to balance, you know, faster instead of raising interest rates, but to help get the things out there that we do need and make sure that we’re working on that? FERGUSON: So, Beth, one of the great dilemmas in economics is that both fiscal policy, you know, taxing and spending, and monetary policy, so-called interest rates, have a much bigger effect immediately on demand than they do on supply. It is very, very difficult to, as one of our central bank colleagues at the Bank of England said, higher or lower interest rates won’t create more or fewer chips to go into cars. (Laughs.) Higher or lower interest rates won’t help to get more individuals back in the workforce. And so your point is certainly well taken that, you know, part of what has to happen here, according to my analysis, is to smooth out supply where we can, and that does depend on labor force participation, more truckers, more manufacturing capabilities in certain areas. And so you put your finger on one of the great dilemmas around monetary policy, which is, you know, there—as powerful as interest rates are, there’s some things that interest rates cannot do very well. And, you know, that is what one of the dilemmas the Fed’s going to face because they don’t want to slow demand so much as to slow us into recession, and they also know that, you know, two years, going on three years into this crisis, supply bottlenecks are gradually easing, but only gradually, and so they want to make sure that they don’t slow demand just as those bottlenecks open up and then we find ourselves with an unnecessarily slow economy because the supply side picks up. And so, you know, you put your finger on one of the dilemmas that we’re all confronting and I know from, you know, various corporations and boards I’m involved with, they’re all trying to understand how to increase supply where they can, but there’s still quite a bit of imbalance that we’re still working through. So I appreciate your great observation. I hope my response helps to just encourage you that you’re thinking about the right thing, though I must say I didn’t give you much hope that we know how to—(laughs)—fix supply in the short term. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m going to take the next written question from Patrick Walsh, who is—works in the office of Representative Danielle Gregoire in Massachusetts. How will inflation and economic outlook affect government investment such as the president’s infrastructure agenda? FERGUSON: Right. So it’s very interesting, back to—and that harkens back to the earlier question. So part of the president’s infrastructure agenda was actually meant to deal with some of these supply questions. By, you know, modernizing our infrastructure, the expectation would be not in the short term but over the long term the productive capacity of society would go up. There are other components as well, including, you know, education, for example. I did a study a few years ago that showed if we, you know, increase the college participation rate, that could increase the size of the U.S. economy by a couple percentage points over, again, a 10-year time frame, again, because of supply side. And so the point of the infrastructure bill is to over time respond exactly to—I think it was Beth’s question—about increasing supply. The challenge, to some degree, is that, you know, the government has been able to pay—the federal government have been able to pay for this by borrowing moneys at these very, very low interest rates; those rates are likely to go up some now, and so it becomes somewhat more expensive to pay for, you know, all of the investments that the president would like to make. And you’re seeing that play out in politics when, you know, some senators are concerned that the cost of these programs is much too high and, therefore, people have been—some senators have been reluctant to vote for them. So you put your finger on a really important point here which is, you know, the idea behind infrastructure is to increase supply over a longer period of time. It is somewhat costly, and the cost will have gone up somewhat because interest rates have gone up, and so there is a cycle that we’re trying to sort of cut through, so to speak, to make all this come together a little better, but right now I think the politicians are struggling a bit with this conundrum that you just identified. FASKIANOS: Great. I’m just going to go back to Beth; she had a follow-up just clarification. So we have a supply of goods but not workers? Just clarifying that point. FERGUSON: Well, both things are true. So, you know, workers and goods go together. Correct? So obviously you have workers who are coming in and out of factories. You may have seen, if you have been in an airport at all, that some of the local stores have shorter hours because there aren’t enough workers. We don’t have enough truckers, which has had an impact on the ability to get goods from one place to another. And so we have supply challenges for workers that have played into some of these so-called supply chain issues; think of that as truckers. We’ve had supply challenges for workers that have played into manufacturing, for example, and so all of those—it’s all part of a cycle, but it starts with the decline in the number of workers; that has an impact on the ability of services and manufacturing companies to consistently provide their goods and services. That has had an impact on inflation, as both businesses try to bring in more workers by raising wages, which then has an impact on the cost of goods. So I hope that that cycle is clear. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We’ll go next to Liz Ellis, who has raised her hand. Q: Thank you very much for calling on me. And thank you, Dr. Ferguson, for giving us such a great overview. I’m Liz Ellis. I’m on city council here in Aberdeen, also in Washington state. And I’m not an economist, but it seems to me that even with rising interest rates they’re still pretty darn low compared to—I remember paying 17 percent ages ago on something. So, given that so many cities like Aberdeen have aging roads and city buildings and a whole host of projects we would like to tackle, isn’t this really the best or a good time to take advantage of debt through bonding or other kinds of measures? Thank you. FERGUSON: So, Liz, you can see by the way I’m nodding my head—first, I disagree with you. You may not be trained as an economist, but you understand economics, because you put your finger on a really important point, which is, interest rates are very low by historical standards. Those who were alive in the ’70s and ’80s will remember, you know, mortgage rates that were 12, 14, 15 percent, and so yes, you’re right to say this still may be a good time for states and municipalities to issue bonds, to fund infrastructure. And in fact, I believe—I may get this wrong, but last year was one of the strongest years in terms of muni bond issuance that the country has seen. Yes, it is also true that on an absolute level interest rates are still relatively low. And I’ll add something else, Liz, which is you’ve heard me—you’ve heard us talk about inflation as being a major issue. There’s this concept called real interest rates, which is the interest rate that’s quoted—it may be 2 percent or 3 percent—minus the inflation rate, and that is called the real interest rate. And right now, real interest rates—you know, the nominal, the stated interest rate minus inflation—is still negative. And so it’s still, you know, relatively inexpensive, versus history and versus inflation, to borrow money, and I think that explains why, if my recollection is correct, we’ve had a very, very strong municipal bond issuance market for, you know, states and municipalities, towns perhaps such as yours. So you start by saying you’re not an economist. I think your understanding of economics proves to be, you know, very sound. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next written question from Danielle Schonbaum, who is the finance administrator in Shelby County, Tennessee. Any thoughts on how rating agencies may revise ratings in a more inflationary environment, specifically for muni debt? FERGUSON: Well, I think they’re going to be looking at the ability to pay and service the debt—right?—because what rating agencies have mainly focused on is exactly that. I mean, municipalities, as you know, cannot go bankrupt, states don’t go bankrupt, so they’re not worried about bankruptcy, but they are worried about, you know, the cash flow to pay the debt. And so depending on the nature of the bond that one has, if it’s a fixed-rate bond, they’ll be looking to see, you know, if you can—you don’t expect the interest rates, the payments to go up very much, but the ability to continue to service that, and if you have some sort of floating-rate debt, certainly they’ll be asking the question as interest rates rise, is the debt service burden manageable? The other thing that they will be looking at is, you know, the underlying dynamics of the local economies and to what degree are those bonds, you know, general purpose bonds or special purpose bonds? To what degree are they tied to, you know, a project or a utility perhaps where maybe they can cover inflationary increases? So I think these rising rates and this question of inflation from the standpoint of rating agencies goes to the question of debt service coverage and the ability to generate revenue, either through general obligation, taxes, or through, you know, special assessments, fees, et cetera, to make sure that the payments are covered. So that will be the topic on people’s minds, and I suspect that for the vast majority of municipalities this will probably not be a major problem. There may be a few for which it is. FASKIANOS: Great. We had a couple raised hands and they lowered them, so if you want to raise your hand again, please do. I’ll go next to Glenn Hodge. Q: I’m sorry— FASKIANOS: There you go. Q: Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: OK. My name is Glenn Hodge. I’m the county administrator for Mobile County, Alabama. And you mentioned more than once about the truck drivers and about the eighty thousand that have migrated out of the industry. It just so happens we’re in a critical stage right now because the trucking companies are picking off our CDL drivers. Can you elaborate more on why the eighty thousand left? That gives me a better idea of what we’re competing with, because as far as salaries, we cannot compete with the private sector, but we’ve got to do something to keep our truck drivers. FERGUSON: First, I’m not a complete expert on this, so I should be, you know, mindful of limitations of knowledge. But when you do surveys and talk to individuals in the sector, it’s actually not so much about wages; it’s lifestyle questions. You know, and some of this has to go to infrastructure. And so you have the stories, and most of this is anecdotal, of truck drivers literally waiting for hours and maybe even days at ports to, you know, get the containers put on the back of their trucks so they can get back to work. You have the story of truck drivers, you know, not having enough rest stations and rest stops and bathrooms along the way, for example. Obviously, there are, you know, lifestyle questions of being on the road for days on end away from home and all those rigors. And I think you’re also finding, as the story that you were saying, you know, truck drivers at their salaries are finding that there may be, you know, other options and opportunities that are not quite so demanding. And so, you know, this seems to be the story with respect to truck drivers. It seems everything to do with lifestyle, but what happens in an economic system such as ours is, you know, you simply bid up wages. At some point, people will say, OK, for that amount of money I’m going to tolerate an unpleasant lifestyle, and that’s sort of the dilemma that I think we are—that we’re facing. So I hope that’s responsive to your question. I think this is just an example of basic Economics 101. (Laughs.) If you have a job that folks don’t want to do, you keep paying them more and more, until eventually some of them come back in, and then also part of this question of fixing infrastructure to make the role of a truck driver much more attractive. But I don’t foresee any moment in the near term where the kind of competition that you’re talking about suddenly sort of evaporates. I think we just are going to have to continue to confront this issue for a long period of time. Q: Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I’m going to take a written question from Henry Lust, who’s the mayor pro tem and council member in Powder Springs, Georgia. What steps do we need to take to get the labor force participation in balance? FERGUSON: This is one of the toughest questions. Labor force has dropped off for a number of reasons, some of which we can’t fix and some we can. First, there’s just the aging population. As I said, we think we have roughly 2 million so-called excess retirements, but we have to recognize that we do have an aging population and people are getting to the stage where they expect to retire. So that’s one element that I’m not sure we can deal with. Second thing that’s been driving this is the point that we made earlier around health care. And as, you know, the variants become milder, as schools stay open, as, you know, parents are feeling more confident, I think that will help to bring some of these people back into the labor force, and to be fair, the labor force participation rate ticked up just a little bit the last two readings, I think, from the labor force. I’m guessing on the number of times we recently have had. So there’s some positive signs there. So that’s, you know, a second element that we, you know, have to focus on, which is maintaining and improving the health outcomes. Having said that, then there’s this third thing which I’m not sure anyone knows quite how to fix, which is, you know, the whole question of working from home, working in the office, young people in particular who seem to be somewhat disaffected with their jobs. I think there the issue is to create a much more sort of friendly environment, particularly for individuals who are only sort of loosely associated with the job market, people who, you know, are happy to drop out for a period of time, live off their savings and then come back in. And so, you know, that’s I think a—probably not a totally satisfactory answer. It’s the best that we know right now. Some of it has to do with aging workforce. You can do something to keep people in at retirement age. Some of it has to do with how and some of it has to do with lifestyle questions, and we can hopefully manage those second two a lot better. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Bret Wier, who is the Colfax County commissioner in New Mexico. What type of pressure on labor rates can we expect in the coming years? Due to these inflation rates, should a COLA match current inflation rates? FERGUSON: So, good question. We just had a survey of CEOs that I do for a group called the Business Council, and we asked the CEOs exactly that, and in fact, they are expecting to see increases in wages roughly 3 percent, maybe 3.5 percent over the next several years. Don’t know for sure if that’s what is going to happen, but that was sort of the interesting finding from this group of CEOs. And so then the question is, should COLAs keep up with that? And one of the challenges is even at those rates of increase of 3 percentage points or more over the next year, still, to a point I made earlier, those increases are not necessarily going to keep up with inflation. And so we’re still going to have a bit of a dynamic where, you know, wage rates go up but there’s going to be a demand for even more increases in wages to keep up with inflation. And so, you know, I think that we should expect to see those kinds of wages increases for a period of time. And all of that, back to an earlier discussion about municipal bonds, what we factored in when, you know, individuals think about the ability of municipalities to cover the debt expense, if they are in fact paying more and more money to keep up with these—through COLAs to keep up with these cost of living increases and the expected wage increases. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Anthony Wright, who has a raised hand. Q: Yeah, thank you. I’m a city councilman in the small town of Hueytown in Alabama. And I think a few years ago I realized that quality of life is more important than money, and so—and where—the people who are going back into the workforce, what areas are they going into? FERGUSON: Yeah. So your point about quality of life is really important. It depends on the generation, and so I’m going to make some broad generalizations because, by definition, each person’s making their own choices. We are obviously seeing younger people continuing to be very interested in, you know, smaller businesses, start-up businesses, where I think what they are looking for is, you know, the excitement of the new, so to speak. They seem to place less emphasis on the kind of security that at least I would have wanted when I was that age. I think for older workers, obviously their questions, as you sort of imply, of gee, what is the work that they can do? There are some people who are clearly retiring because, you know, the physical labor is too much. We are seeing some individuals, to your point about quality of life, migrating from larger cities to smaller towns and into rural areas, which many of us think is a quality of life decision. And so there are many different ways that people are looking at this, and I think some of it has to do with generation; some of it has to do with, you know, industry that you may have been in. We’re certainly seeing many people in health care pulling out of that because of the stresses and strains of the last several years, so there’s a dramatic shortage of nurses. There always—has been for quite a while in the U.S. and it’s even worse now, and that’s, I think, attributed to the stresses of being front-line, you know, health care workers during a pandemic that’s lasted—you know, ebbs and flows, now coming into three years. So, you know, there’s lots of different—and then we talked obviously about the truck driver issue, which is, you know, a type of quality of life question as well. So I think we are seeing people pulling out of jobs where the quality of life is unappealing and moving to jobs where I think they’re feeling even more valued or, you know, more capabilities. One last thing I would point out: We have seen a dramatic drop of women in the labor force, and we think that’s very much attributed to the challenge of, you know, working from home or living at work and balancing, you know, childcare issues as well. So that’s a separate kind of sort of quality of life and life trade-off matter where some women in particular who may be primary caregivers in their homes have decided to focus more on the caregiving side during these difficult times, as opposed to, you know, continuing to pursue their careers. So there are lots of different places in which quality of life comes into play, either driving people out of jobs or bringing people into jobs. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next written question from Wayne Domke, who’s a trustee in Roselle Village, Illinois. Obviously, we’ve seen immigration continues to be a source of a lot of discussion in this country and immigration laws. So his question: Is increasing immigration a viable answer to the labor shortage? FERGUSON: And the answer to that question is yes. So let’s start with the other side of the question. We know that a drop-off in immigration over the last couple years was one of the sources of labor shortage, and so by definition, to your point, increasing immigration could well be one of the solutions to this challenge. And, you know, we have quite a bit of challenge in this country politically around immigration, et cetera, but I don’t think there’s any economists—maybe a few I don’t know, but most economists would certainly say that a more regularized, more stable, more certain immigration process and approach is certainly part of the process of making for a better labor force. And we actually saw that—when I say better I mean in terms of size. We absolutely saw that—you know, the decline in immigration was associated with a decline in the size of the labor force. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I’m going to take the next question from David. We have several Davids on the roster so I’m not sure from where he hails. But any rate, the written question is: To what extent is what we’re seeing the result of last year being artificially low demand as a result of the pandemic, rather than underlying or continuing structural issues that ought to trigger more fundamental responses from the Fed and other actors? FERGUSON: Well, very good point. That has been one of the big debates. You may recall that the discussion of inflation for a period of time was, was it permanent, was it temporary? Transitory was a phrase being used. Now, it’s very much a discussion in this domain. I would also say to the earlier—to your point; it feeds into one of the points I made earlier. When we had the shutdown associated with the first stages of the COVID challenge, the COVID pandemic, what we saw was a dramatic drop-off in demand for services—restaurants, hotels, trips, transportation, you know, Broadway, et cetera—but an increase over time in demand for goods. And so you’re hitting one of the dilemmas. We know that over time all that’s going to be resolved, and it goes back to the point I made earlier, which is, as the Fed is raising rates, it’s going to be very challenging to figure out, well, how much of inflation is sort of built in and is likely to stick? How much of it is going to resolve itself because of the supply-and-demand imbalances fixing themselves? How much of it will resolve itself as people start to buy more in the way of services but less in the way of goods? And so some of this for sure is simply the result of the imbalances of last year becoming new imbalances this year or the imbalances two years ago, and that is one of the things that makes the Fed policy decision making very, very tricky is, you know, they—it will take a little while for them to figure out which of these inflationary pressures are due to rates being much too low or can be fixed by raising rates, versus, you know, other things in terms of the supply chain that we’ve been talking about. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next written question from Jon Thompson, who is on the Sedona, Arizona, City Council. Is growth essential to a healthy economy or is it possible to convert to a circular economy that is indefinitely sustainable? FERGUSON: Very difficult question. This is a question of personal belief. I believe that equitable and balanced growth is essential to forward progress in the economy. That is in part because we have now an aging population, and so we’ll—you have to have, you know, increased productivity for every person who’s working in order to support those who aren’t working, in our Social Security system, and that implies growth because it implies that, you know, working people become much more productive, if you will, and hopefully productive enough to pay for themselves and increasing lifestyle, as well as supporting the lifestyle of other people, older people, retirees, et cetera. So, you know, this is one of these—this is an interesting question from many, many years ago, this whole notion of, is growth a good thing or a bad thing? Can we have a circular economy? I very much—of the mode of growth being much more likely to allow us to do everything we want to do. Right? We have to make investments in infrastructure that is underutilized. We have to make investments in education. We have to figure out how to improve our medical system. We have to have a smaller number of people working age for those of us who are advancing to retirement age. And so all of that says to me that sort of ongoing growth, if done well and equitably, is better than trying to maintain an economy of just this size and somehow or another make it more sustainable, or more certain, to use your word. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I’m going to take the next written question from Fire Chief Mark Niemeyer, who is in Idaho. Does modern monetary theory have validity? Many economists are predicting a significant slowdown, recession, even depression, as we get closer to 2030. Very concerned about several indicators not headed in the right direction. FERGUSON: So for those who don’t know what it is, modern monetary theory is a theory that says that economies such as the United States or Japan or others don’t need to worry about debt; they can just keep printing debt or borrowing money because they pay for it in their own currency, which says, basically, you know, the deficit doesn’t matter, debt doesn’t matter, and that none of these things—that all constraints are far less relevant. I tend not to believe in that theory. You know, I do think that even the United States over time has a limit to how much it can borrow. We have certainly seen that inflation has occurred in part because, as we said earlier, of very stimulative fiscal monetary policy. You know, one of the very interesting things that I discovered—it was an article about modern monetary theory in the paper a couple days ago where one of the leading proponents of that theory argued that the reason we have inflation is because we have these imbalances and bottlenecks I just talked about, you know, but that’s always—whenever you have rapid growth, you always have that as a risk. And so, you know, the theory of modern monetary theory, that somehow or another you can have rapid growth of money and rapid growth of the economy and never have inflation presumes that you can just keep producing goods at just the right quantities just as quickly as the society needs them, and we’ve seen that that has not been true. And so I think what we just had is an experiment, to some degree, in modern monetary theory that, in my mind, has disproven the theory, not proven it, and I think most economists have become more skeptical of modern monetary theory over the last year and a half than perhaps had been true before. So, you know, out of that, I would say I wouldn’t worry too much about some of their projections because I, at least, think that, you know, the inflation that we’re confronting right now is at least in part a repudiation of some of the basic tenets of modern monetary theory. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We have no other raised hands, so I’ll just ask a quick question about, what implications does inflation have for small and local businesses? FERGUSON: That’s a very good question. Inflation tends to be more difficult for small businesses to manage than for larger businesses. Smaller businesses have very little in the way of purchasing power, so, you know, they have to—you know, whatever the prices are that are charged by their bigger providers are sort of the prices they have to take, and at the same time, many small businesses, not all, are dealing, you know, in local communities where maybe, you know, the economy doesn’t allow them to raise prices as quickly as possible. Also, small businesses tend to be, you know, in very competitive marketplaces where if you don’t like what’s at one store you go to the next store, and so, you know, there’s a lot of price comparison for many small businesses that limits their ability to raise prices more than, you know, the standards. So small businesses, I think more so than some larger ones, because they—we call them as being price takers more than price setters—tend to struggle a bit more during inflation than others, and so there’s a bit of a challenge for them that maybe some of the larger businesses don’t have, even though all businesses have shown in this particular inflationary period that, you know, these rapid rises in prices and wages have actually had an impact, you know, on almost—on many, many businesses, so it’s not only small businesses, but over time, smaller businesses tend to suffer from inflation more than others. It is also true that there are certain sectors, when the Fed is raising interest rates to deal with inflation, that tend to have bigger impacts, so housing, for example, tends to have a bigger—be impacted more directly when the Fed is raising rates, so, you know, one of the outcomes of inflation is the Fed having to raise rates to stop it and that has unequal impacts across the economy as well. FASKIANOS: And then you layer on the pandemic and the effects, how that has affected things. FERGUSON: Exactly right. FASKIANOS: Well, Roger, if you want to just give us any parting remarks. There are no more questions. You have been terrific in covering a whole range—(laughs)—of this, so— FERGUSON: So let me—you know, a parting a remark is, you know, I’m incredibly optimistic that we’ll work through this. Some of this has to do with these supply issues I’ve talked about, some of it has to do with getting people interested in the right kinds of jobs. You know, I think, you know, we should recognize that this really, while it’s challenging is also manageable, because I don’t think—you know, the U.S. economy is proving to be incredibly resilient through inflation, deflation, other things. The fundamental strengths of the economy have to do with our vibrancy, our general optimism, you know, the kind of can-do attitude that, you know, distinguishes America maybe from any others, and so while we are focused in on a challenging time now, with labor force participation and supply chain issues and inflation, you know, none of us should reach the stage of thinking that this is anything more than, you know, yet another, you know, challenge that America has confronted but we should all be incredibly optimistic, as with other challenges, that we will, you know, persevere and work our way through this one as well. And so I want to leave people on a sense of my own personal optimism, even as I spend a lot of my time digging in dry numbers—(laughs)—and trying to understand arcane facts out of that. For me, at least, has come a real sense that we will continue to do reasonably well, quite well, and I couldn’t imagine any other country that’s going to do better with these challenges than the United States of America. FASKIANOS: Well, with that, we will bring this webinar to a close. Dr. Ferguson, thank you very much for your expertise and analysis today, and to all of you for your questions and comments and for spending this hour with us. As always, we will send out a link to the webinar recording and transcript so you can review it and share it with your colleagues or constituents. You can follow Dr. Ferguson’s work on CFR.org. As I said at the outset, he is working on a project called the Future of Capitalism, so we’ll have to bring him back when—to talk about that—(laughs)—at the appropriate time. And please follow the State and Local Officials Initiative on Twitter at CFR_local. And as always, I encourage you to visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for more expertise and analysis, and do email us, [email protected], to let us know how CFR can support the important work you are all doing in your communities. So thank you all again. And thank you, Roger Ferguson. FERGUSON: Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. (END)